PDA

View Full Version : Why China’s Navy is a Threat


akv
09-17-2010, 01:18
Why China’s Navy is a Threat
EAST ASIA | SECURITY September 17, 2010
By James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara

Sceptics who downplay China's growing maritime strength are mistaken. South-east Asian policymakers should ignore them.

Civilian academics who study military affairs like to hold forth on tactical matters. But this can lead to misguided advice. Exhibit A: Prof. Bernard Loo of Singapore's Rajaratnam School of International Relations recently maintained that there's 'less than meets the eye' to the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) combat reach in South-east Asia. Now, he insists, 'is not the time to press the panic button.'

This upbeat appraisal rests on several flimsy assumptions and claims. If they heed Loo's advice, South-east Asian governments that can ill afford complacency will seriously misjudge the Chinese maritime challenge. They need not panic, but they must cope with China's waxing naval might—starting now.

First of all, Loo deprecates 'an alleged aircraft carrier-killing cruise missile,' suggesting a sea-skimming anti-ship missile with a range of a few score miles. But the anti-ship missile that vexes China-watchers is an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), a weapon whose range, speed and hitting power dwarf that of any cruise missile. Estimates vary, but should the PLA perfect its ASBM, Chinese racketeers could pound away at ships underway up to 2,000 miles away.

What would this mean? It means that PLA forces could range the entire South China Sea from mobile launchers positioned on Hainan Island or elsewhere along the South China coast. Loo counsels Southeast Asian navies to simply wait out a Chinese Navy that lacks a robust logistics fleet. But if PLA forces can use land-based weaponry to sink ships in port or cruising the South China Sea, then this amounts to a strategy of defeat and destruction.

But sea power is anyway about more than the fleet. Even if the PLA Navy proves unable to mount a continuous presence in the South China Sea—an assumption growing more doubtful by the day—systems able to influence events at sea from the land provide continuous virtual presence throughout the spectrum of conflict, from peacetime to wartime. This versatility explains the emphasis Chinese strategists now place on extended-range shore-based weaponry.

Next, Loo claims that navies typically follow a three-phase tactical training and deployment cycle. This means one-third of the fleet is deployed at any given time, another third is refitting and unavailable for sea service and the remaining third is working up for deployment. From this Loo concludes that estimates of Chinese naval power wildly overstate the numbers of ships and aircraft available to Beijing at any given time.

There are two problems with this. For one, the 3:1 ratio isn't an iron law of naval operations but a rule of thumb derived from standard US Navy practice. But the US Navy, today's only global navy, is encumbered with commitments far more demanding than those confronting any regional fleet. As a result, American warships incur far greater wear-and-tear in the course of their duties. That requires frequent shipyard periods to refit.


Navies like China's that mostly operate close to home can expect to have a bigger proportion of their fleet available at any particular moment. The maintenance burden is smaller and the time spent in port greater, allowing for generous overhaul time and crew rest.

For another, even if the 3:1 rule did apply to all navies, far more than one-third of the fleet can be combat-ready at any moment. In 2004 the US Navy simultaneously deployed seven of its eleven aircraft-carrier strike groups for 'Operation Summer Pulse,' a massive exercise spanning five theaters across the globe. If the US fleet can overcome the rigors of extended deployments and upkeep, a Chinese Navy with more modest missions could probably do so as well.

Bottom line: Prof. Loo takes maritime specialists to task for exaggerating PLAN force totals by a factor of three, but he understates available PLA Navy combat strength by half.

Moreover, Loo seems to think the US Pacific Fleet can easily mass overwhelming strength in the South China Sea to beat back a Chinese naval offensive. At first glance this appears reasonable. The navy recently finished realigning its force posture, concentrating some 60 percent of its assets in the Pacific. But at 287 vessels, the US Navy is now smaller in raw numbers than before World War I, and it is dispersed across the globe discharging countless missions.

This declining fleet must contend with a PLA Navy that has spent the last 15 years devising capabilities—of which the ASBM represents only one—aimed at exploiting US weaknesses in antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures and other niche areas. The result? Chinese mariners can now impose steep costs on the US Pacific Fleet, contesting its ability even to reach a theater of combat like the South China Sea—much less to wage war effectively once there.

True, the PLA Navy exhibits weaknesses of its own such as at-sea refueling and rearming. It therefore behooves South-east Asian governments to start exploiting such vulnerabilities. Heaving a sigh of relief at China's supposed maritime weakness represents precisely the wrong approach. Government policymakers should beware of academics who purport to speak with authority on tactical and technical matters—drawing conclusions their experience and expertise does not support.


James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara are associate professors of strategy at the US Naval War College and co-authors of Red Star over the Pacific: China's Rise and the Challenge to US Maritime Strategy. The views voiced here are theirs alone.

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/09/17/why-chinas-navy-is-a-threat/

taskforceiron
09-19-2010, 09:37
I'll get concerned when they actually deploy some carrier battlegroups.

The Reaper
09-19-2010, 10:21
I'll get concerned when they actually deploy some carrier battlegroups.

Or maybe after they send one of ours to the bottom. The Chinese are building a capability directed specifically at establishing regional naval superiority and destroying US carrier battle groups. Our capabilities are greater, but directed at a much broader set of objectives. That leaves an asymmetric gap that they can exploit for a much smaller investment.

Lack of ability to project power globally should not be confused with the inability to hurt us in a regional conflict.

I don't think the American people have the will anymore to fight and win a protracted naval campaign in the Far East.

The Chinese have their own agenda and will use the full range of their DIME capabilities to support their strategic goals and objectives.

We have a far superior force, but do not always use it properly.

TR

Pete
09-19-2010, 10:31
........
We have a far superior force, but do not always use it properly.

TR

Or have it in the right place - it takes time to move Naval Forces and the less you have the farther they have to travel.

taskforceiron
09-19-2010, 12:34
The Chinese should be pleased with their current position in the world which is a result of trade with the west. They should do whatever insures that this relationship continues. War would only result in their self destruction.

Lanyard
09-19-2010, 19:28
War now would be pointless, but what will it look like in 100-200 years? The Chinese have a few thousand years of uninterrrupted history and think along generational time lines. They are in the first stage of Empire building, buying/stealing everything they can. After 50-75 years of this they may turn to small regional skirmishes and military bluffs against small fry countries to achieve their goals. Once they have established their hegemony they will have an opportunity to fully exercise their military might, or not.

I think the only thing that could stop this Juggernaut is internal collapse, a very real possibility in my mind.

Lanyard
09-20-2010, 14:07
Historically I agree with you, however, I believe they have seen the light and understand that they must control vast stretches of resource and market rich areas. You have only to look at Africa & South America to see what they desire.

I also believe that the current regime could stave off any domestic unrest by focusing on foreign aggression. Who's going to stop them? Maybe Putin, certainly not us or the europeans.

incarcerated
09-21-2010, 10:11
Forget their navy:

1st photo caption:
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (L) and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinoza speak during the closing of the IV Permanent Binational Commission Mexico-China on July 30, 2010 in Mexico City. Mexico sought to strengthen ties with China during a visit by Yang. Some 150 government workers from both countries took part in the latest talks, including customs and health officials for the first time. China is Mexico's second largest trading partner after the United States.

2nd photo caption:
Troops from People's Republic of China armed forces participate in Mexico's traditional Independence Day military parade as part of the bicentennial of the independence celebrations in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza Thursday Sept. 16, 2010.

taskforceiron
09-21-2010, 10:24
Forget their navy:

1st photo caption:
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (L) and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinoza speak during the closing of the IV Permanent Binational Commission Mexico-China on July 30, 2010 in Mexico City. Mexico sought to strengthen ties with China during a visit by Yang. Some 150 government workers from both countries took part in the latest talks, including customs and health officials for the first time. China is Mexico's second largest trading partner after the United States.

2nd photo caption:
Troops from People's Republic of China armed forces participate in Mexico's traditional Independence Day military parade as part of the bicentennial of the independence celebrations in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza Thursday Sept. 16, 2010.

It requires a navy for them to transport their troops to preposition themselves for any military operation that would be directed against our interests anywhere other than Asia. They lack power projection outside their own immediate territory.

akv
09-21-2010, 13:48
The challenges for the Chinese leadership remains balancing their lack of arable land relative to their population vs the regime ending outcome of income gap resulting from western trade. Their pattern repeats through their history. Barring another Mongol Horde, the geography of the Urals and Himalayas would make significant land warfare between China and Russia or India very difficult. They can't really get at each other

Since their economy is based on importing natural resources and exporting cheap goods, a naval blockade by the US or Japan would be terminal for this regime. So a powerful regional navy is in their best interests.

My concern is for our sailors first learning the age of the carrier has passed when they are being hit by Mach 10 anti shipping missiles responding to a regional conflict.

Though come to think of it I have noticed a few more Hispanic looking dudes hanging out at the neighborhood Dim Sum joint...;)

greenberetTFS
09-21-2010, 16:36
Your discussing China's Navy,concern yourselves with there recent paratroop mobility......:eek: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/paratroopers-fly-200-km-after-jump-1892.html ........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

ZonieDiver
09-21-2010, 17:11
Your discussing China's Navy,concern yourselves with there recent paratroop mobility......:eek: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/paratroopers-fly-200-km-after-jump-1892.html ........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

That brings to mind the "flying monkey" scene in "The Wizard of Oz"! This time the sky will be filled with Flying Chinese Paratroopers - not monkeys. (That part of the movie scared the bejeebers out of me as a kid.)

I used to say I'd worry about the Chinese when I heard they were making a couple million sets of waterwings. Maybe I should start worrying now...

taskforceiron
09-21-2010, 17:12
The article states the Germans have had such a capability since 03. I'll be scared of China when they actually have a fully modernized armed forces. Most of their equipment is reengineered Russian junk.

akv
09-21-2010, 17:39
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Germans?

This would explain the FeldGrau...

The Reaper
09-21-2010, 17:43
The challenges for the Chinese leadership remains balancing their lack of arable land relative to their population vs the regime ending outcome of income gap resulting from western trade. Their pattern repeats through their history. Barring another Mongol Horde, the geography of the Urals and Himalayas would make significant land warfare between China and Russia or India very difficult. They can't really get at each other

You haven't really studied the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the far east over the years or the geography of the region, have you?

TR

taskforceiron
09-21-2010, 17:53
You haven't really studied the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the far east over the years or the geography of the region, have you?

TR

Haven't those two become tight again with both being in the SCO?

akv
09-21-2010, 18:05
You haven't really studied the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the far east over the years or the geography of the region, have you?



TR,

Sir, I have read of border clashes between the Chinese and Soviets in the 60's, and a great deal on the Mongols. I would defer to your expertise in the matter but from my layman's readings the distances, terrain, and logistics chain would make full scale conflict difficult, which is why I specified difficult, not impossible. I also read about the difficulties incurred by both side during Himalayan conflict in the Sino-Indo War clash of 1963.

FWIW below is a STRATFOR excerpt on China I found of interest.


China's geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China's population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China's territory-the area west of this coastal plain-is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost.

China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers-barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China's favor at these points.

Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region. First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China's defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process.

The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions.

greenberetTFS
09-22-2010, 08:02
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Germans?

This would explain the FeldGrau...

All that's missing in your pic would be a propeller!............... ;)

Big Teddy :munchin

akv
09-22-2010, 11:04
All that's missing in your pic would be a propeller!...............

Yes Sir, though I don't think they will ever declare " War on Sparrows" again, even with flying prop suits.


http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/the-great-sparrow-wars/

greenberetTFS
09-22-2010, 13:32
Yes Sir, though I don't think they will ever declare " War on Sparrows" again, even with flying prop suits.


http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/the-great-sparrow-wars/

Now you see what a true leader knows where his priority's lie!...........:rolleyes::eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

incarcerated
09-22-2010, 23:17
It requires a navy for them to transport their troops to preposition themselves for any military operation that would be directed against our interests anywhere other than Asia. They lack power projection outside their own immediate territory.

What is the quality of their army though? Also the logistics required to feed, cloth, equip, etc...such an army?



Don’t allow the photographs of uniformed cadre to lead you into thinking about China’s conventional military threat. The Chinese are not going to produce a conventional military confrontation in the Western Hemisphere any time soon. They have said as much:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1999/unresw1.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw1.htm

http://www.elequity.com/public/TJH/war/unrestricted-warfare-china.pdf

Think smaller.
In order for China to project power and influence in North America, it only requires a merchant marine, which they have in spades.

Pete
09-27-2010, 05:47
While U.S. is distracted, China develops sea power

By Robert D. Kaplan
Sunday, September 26, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092404767.html

".............America's preoccupation with the Middle East suits China perfectly. We are paying in blood and treasure to stabilize Afghanistan while China is building transport and pipeline networks throughout Central Asia that will ultimately reach Kabul and the trillion dollars' worth of minerals lying underground. Whereas Americans ask how can we escape Afghanistan, the Chinese, who are already prospecting for copper there, ask: How can we stay? Our military mission in Afghanistan diverts us from properly reacting to the Chinese naval challenge in East Asia. .............."

taskforceiron
09-27-2010, 16:37
While U.S. is distracted, China develops sea power

By Robert D. Kaplan
Sunday, September 26, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092404767.html

".............America's preoccupation with the Middle East suits China perfectly. We are paying in blood and treasure to stabilize Afghanistan while China is building transport and pipeline networks throughout Central Asia that will ultimately reach Kabul and the trillion dollars' worth of minerals lying underground. Whereas Americans ask how can we escape Afghanistan, the Chinese, who are already prospecting for copper there, ask: How can we stay? Our military mission in Afghanistan diverts us from properly reacting to the Chinese naval challenge in East Asia. .............."

We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

The Reaper
09-27-2010, 17:25
We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

You need to do some research before making blanket statements like that.

The Chinese already have mineral rights and clearance to build pipelines and transportation infrastructure.

And AFAIK, we are not doing a thing about it.

TR

taskforceiron
09-27-2010, 17:30
You need to do some research before making blanket statements like that.

The Chinese already have mineral rights and clearance to build pipelines and transportation infrastructure.

And AFAIK, we are not doing a thing about it.

TR

How did they get those rights?

The Reaper
09-27-2010, 17:38
How did they get those rights?

They paid off the right people and signed a contract with the government. The same way the oil rights in Iraq were obtained.

The MSM reported on the contracts.

How do you think they got them?

TR

taskforceiron
09-27-2010, 17:44
They paid off the right people and signed a contract with the government. The same way the oil rights in Iraq were obtained.

The MSM reported on the contracts.

How do you think they got them?

TR

Heck, in this day and age you never know. This is the first I have heard about this.

GratefulCitizen
09-27-2010, 22:12
We will claim those minerals before China ever thinks about it. This article is worst case scenario.

Those deposits aren't ore-grade to us, it's just dirt.
It might be ore to China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/weekinreview/20mcneil.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=The%20Curse%20of%20Plenty&st=cse

Because it takes up to 20 years for a mine to start earning profits and Afghanistan has been a battleground for 31 years, “no mining company in its right mind would go into Afghanistan now,” said Murray W. Hitzman, a professor of economic geology at the Colorado School of Mines.

<snip>

Compared with those countries, Afghanistan is at disadvantage, mining experts said. Even for $1 trillion, its riches may not be worth digging up.

Compared with oil drilling, minerals mining is extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming. As everyone from Jed Clampett to BP has discovered, a bubblin’ crude can emerge under its own pressure as soon as the earth’s surface is pricked.

Diamond mining is also comparatively cheap — diamonds are formed in pipes of softer kimberlite pushed up by volcanoes and usually mined in open pits or dug out of the beds of rivers that washed the volcanoes away. After that, they are simply sorted out of the gravel.

But gold, silver, copper and other minerals are usually locked in ore that must be tunneled down to, blasted out by the ton, carried to the surface, and ground into powder for processing. Digging the shafts and building elevators, processing plants, railroads and tarmac roads “can cost hundreds of millions to billions for a single mining operation,” said Roderick Eggert, director of the economics division at the Colorado School of Mines. “Even a small gold mine is $100 million.”

And while an oil well can go from discovery to production in two or three years, “it would take 5 to 15 years to go from where most of Afghanistan is now to an operating mine,” he said.

After that, added his colleague Dr. Hitzman, “even with a good mine, it takes 5 to 10 years to recoup your investment. What’s Afghanistan going to be like in five years?”

Also, someone must provide security, and 20 years of security by the United States military would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

England, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Japan all discovered that the costs of policing empires outweighed the financial gains and that it was more practical to let private companies shoulder the risks. Mineral prices fluctuate wildly, and $1 trillion today may soon be much less. Gold broke the $1,000-an-ounce barrier for the first time last year. But it had hit $873 in 1980 — the equivalent of $2,300 today — and then languished under $500 for years.


Not worth it.

FWIW, Dr. Eggert predicted the current US/China trade relationship back in the early '90s. :munchin

Angry Mike
09-29-2010, 07:58
Interesting article I came across in my research on UW stuff.

What will this administration do? How will the next administration react to the fall out and conduct itself??

Scary prospect.

Thoughts?

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

MT

GratefulCitizen
10-02-2010, 22:33
Concerning critical minerals.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12034

taskforceiron
10-03-2010, 08:42
I consider these types of articles as just seeds being planted in the minds of the people who fail to understand the difference between capabilities and motives. This is to do nothing more than to continue to justify the need to feed the military industrial complex. Many of our nation's wealthiest men own these companies. The Chinese have everything to lose if they were to trigger a conflict with the U.S. Nobody in their right mind wants a war with the United States.

incarcerated
10-03-2010, 14:18
Thoughts?




In the Kraska piece, the hypothetical threat is not so much from the development of a large Chinese navy (the symmetric threat), as from the capabilities of anti-ship weapons. That threat is not a future problem, having seen use in 1982 in the Falklands. The tactical guided missile, in the forms of the anti-ship weapon, the guided anti-tank weapon, and MANPADS, comprise the poor man’s counter to $multi-million Western weapons systems and platforms. This principle was demonstrated in Southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006, where Hezbollah played a shell game moving Russian, French and American made anti-tank weapons inside an extensive trench and bunker network to stop Israeli armor. For the first time in its history, Israel was fought to a standstill by an Arab force. It is not clear that Israel has devised a successful counter to this problem. Iran intends to use the principle again in the Persian Gulf (supplemented by mines and armed speed boats) should hostilities erupt with the West. A 2007 paper by an American college student identified the sinking of an American aircraft carrier as an Iranian victory condition in a military conflict with the U.S. Much of the discussion over at the Airwarriors forum centers on the unlikelihood of a major conflict with China. Fine. All that is necessary is for the Chinese to export the weapons to Iran. This would be a preferred course of action for China, and somewhat predictable. Now you have a credible scenario that is not such a future hypothetical. While not costing the U.S. the dominance and control of the Western Pacific, the loss of the U.S.S. George Washington in the Arabian Sea would call that dominance into question in the same fashion that Israeli military superiority has been since 2006. While we are definitely looking the other way while China develops a blue water navy, we may very well face the question of the catastrophic loss of a carrier (and the implications of that) in the short term.

Pete
10-24-2010, 05:17
All at the Yellow Sea: Obama's Provocative Weakness Against China

http://www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewArticle/1064

"..........First, Mr. Obama tried to split the difference, hosting exercises led by the George Washington in the less contentious Sea of Japan, off Korea’s eastern coast. However, the move was interpreted by allies and enemies alike as a cessation of American authority in Asia and an embarrassment to South Korea, which had gone on record insisting the George Washington would stand by its side in the Yellow Sea.

The message carried particular salience in the capitals of Southeast Asia, where tensions with China are fast on the rise. After years of an effective Chinese charm offensive, many East and Southeast Asian nations have become alienated by hardening Chinese territorial claims in the Pacific. The South China Sea, where island chains such as the Spratlys and Paracels are disputed by China and Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Phillipines and Taiwan, has become a particular flashpoint......"

All the above goes with.......

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37068&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=058b05b6b8

"......Chinese academic engineering literature cited by a prominent Western defense magazine supports the fact "that the PLA has also been researching fuel-cell AIP engine technology—with the PLA having benefited via Chinese academics from several conferences with German fuel-cell technology experts" (Jane's Defense Weekly, October 7). The addition of an AIP system could allow a Chinese submarine to operate underwater for up to 30 days on battery power, and would make the Song and Yuan submarines inaudible to existing U.S. surveillance networks-and U.S. subs........."

incarcerated
05-27-2011, 01:45
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/few-reasons-to-fear-chinas-pearls/story-e6frg6ux-1226063671201

Few reasons to fear China's 'pearls'

May 27, 2011
Ashley Townshend
REVELATIONS that Pakistan has invited China to construct a naval base at the strategically located port of Gwadar have intensified anxieties about Beijing's Indian Ocean objectives. For many observers, any militarisation of the Gwadar facility - a predominantly Chinese-funded commercial port about 500km from the Strait of Hormuz - would confirm deep-seated suspicions about Beijing's so-called "string of pearls" strategy.

According to proponents of this view, China is establishing ports throughout littoral South Asia as a smokescreen for intelligence gathering and as a precursor to more permanent basing arrangements. Many worry that ostensibly commercial ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma will eventually be transformed into fully-fledged naval facilities. Access to such bases would enable Beijing to project military power right across the Indian Ocean - challenging US naval primacy, encircling India and threatening the sea lanes that transport about 25 per cent of the world's oil.

But there are many reasons to be sceptical about this hypothesis.

While Chinese state-owned corporations have bankrolled commercial "pearls" in South Asia, there's no evidence to suggest these have a military dimension. All are unfortified container ports designed to connect maritime supply chains to a growing network of continental roads, railways, pipelines and airfields. Most serve to link the land-locked provinces of southwestern China to the lucrative trade routes of the Indian Ocean.

Beijing's strategic interests to the west of Singapore appear more concerned with energy security than naval power. Since almost 80 per cent of its oil imports must traverse the Indian Ocean's vast and vulnerable waterways, China's main maritime objective is to secure its hydrocarbon lifeline. A string of South Asian shipping hubs shortens the voyage from the Persian Gulf to China and reduces Beijing's reliance on the Malacca Strait "chokepoint" - dominated at both ends by US and Indian warships.

Of course, any deep-water port can also harbour warships. It is thus true that the maritime infrastructure under construction in South Asia will provide a series of useful footholds for naval vessels to rest, refuel and possibly refit....

[graphic from:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725814/posts ]

LarryW
05-27-2011, 06:22
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226063671201

Few reasons to fear China's 'pearls'

IMHO, we might do well to look ahead at what "power projection" is going to mean in the next 100 years. I don't think the emphasis from global powers will be military, but economic. IMO, military threats will come from smaller geopolitically strong countries.

China needs and desires oil and customers.

They don't need or want a military project beyond their borders. The development of the "string of pearls", IMHO, doesn't represent China expanding it's military capability, but rather doing what it has to do to insure economic growth. It's "economic projection" that equals "power".

That being said, the effects of a PLAN CV presence in Gwadar would have quite an impact on the mission sets (and the military industry) the USN (and the EU) would pursue to counter them. We haven't had a potentially hostile CVBG threat (Soviet Navy notwithstanding, and theirs was more an ASM platform than it was a platform from which they could project carrier based air assets) since WWII.

That's my opinion FWIW anyway.

tonyz
08-11-2011, 06:55
There are pictures and additional links embedded in full story.

EXCERPT:

"U.S. carriers come to Hong Kong, so why shouldn't ours go to California or New York?" said Xu Guangyu, a retired Chinese general.

WSJ – online - ASIA NEWS

AUGUST 11, 2011

China Flexes Naval Muscle
By JEREMY PAGE


BEIJING—China sent its first aircraft carrier to sea, a defining moment in its effort to become a top-tier naval power that seeks to challenge U.S. military supremacy in Asia and protect Chinese economic interests that now span the globe.

China's first aircraft carrier has begun its inaugural sea trial, the defence ministry said Wednesday, a move likely to stoke concerns about the nation's rapid military expansion.

The carrier, based on an empty hull bought from Ukraine, sounded its horn three times as it plowed through fog around the northeastern port of Dalian early Wednesday to begin its first sea trials, according to a Twitter-like service by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

The vessel, nearly 1,000 feet long, is far from fully operational: It has a new engine, radar, guns and other equipment, but has limited combat potential without backup from other carriers and an array of support ships. For the moment, it will be used mainly for training personnel, especially fighter pilots who must learn to take off from and land on a moving deck.

China's carrier, designed to carry about 2,000 people and 50 fighter jets, is dwarfed by the nuclear-powered U.S. Nimitz-class "supercarrier," which can carry 6,250 people and launch planes with more fuel and weaponry thanks to a catapult system and longer runway. China's carrier, which isn't nuclear powered, is thought to have a gas-turbine or marine-diesel engine.

China has yet to name its carrier, and tried to play down its significance Wednesday, saying in a Xinhua commentary: "There should be no excessive worries or paranoid feelings on China's pursuit of an aircraft carrier, as it will not pose a threat to other countries."

The vessel nonetheless sends a powerful message both to China's domestic audience, for whom a carrier has for decades been equated with national strength, and to the U.S. and its regional allies, many of whom are embroiled in territorial disputes with Beijing.

It is the most potent symbol yet of China's long-term desire to develop the power both to deny U.S. naval access to Asian waters and to protect its global economic interests, including shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and oil sources in the Middle East.

Its launch is thus seen as a milestone in relations between an ascendant China, bent on reclaiming its historical role as a global power, and a debt-ridden U.S. that wants to retain the military supremacy it has wielded in Asia since 1945.

China denies trying to match the might of the U.S. Navy, which now has 11 carriers, including one, the George Washington, that is based in Japan. Even Chinese experts admit it could take a decade to master the intricate choreography of a carrier group, which typically involves frigates, destroyers, submarines and satellites, all using an integrated command and control system.

But serving and retired Chinese officers make no secret of their country's aspiration to develop up to four larger, indigenous carriers by around 2020.

China has also alarmed the U.S. and its regional allies in the past year with a more combative stance on territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas.

The Pentagon is also playing down the carrier's significance. Some U.S. officials privately question the quality of Chinese engineering, which came into sharp relief last month with a deadly train crash on the country's high-speed rail network.

At the same time, the U.S. is countering China's military build-up by shoring up defense ties with old Asian allies Japan and South Korea as well as new partners like India and Vietnam.

Several Asian nations, including Japan and Australia, are beefing up their arsenals too, fearing that the U.S. security umbrella is being eroded by China's enhanced capabilities and possible U.S. defense budget cuts.

For Beijing, however, the carrier's short-term capabilities are less important than its symbolic significance, especially for Communist Party leaders courting military support ahead of a leadership change next year.

As if to exaggerate the achievement for a fiercely nationalistic audience, China's state television featured no images of the sea trials, and instead used footage of what appeared to be fighter jets taking off from Russian or U.S. carriers.

"From the Opium War in 1840 to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, China suffered more than 470 offenses and invasions that came from the seas," the Xinhua commentary said.

Chinese officials say their country's naval power is now expanding in tandem with its economic interests, and has benefited the rest of the world by taking part in antipiracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.

They also point out that of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council—China, the U.S., Britain, France and Russia—China has been the only one without an operational carrier. India and Thailand have a carrier each, while Japan has one that carries helicopters.

"China is a big country and we have quite a large number of ships, but they are only small ships," said Chen Bingde, the chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, at a July news conference with Adm. Mike Mullen, the visiting U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "This is not commensurate with the status of a country like China."

Plans to develop a Chinese carrier, first proposed in 1928, intensified after Adm. Liu Huaqing, China's naval chief, toured a U.S. carrier—the Kitty Hawk—in 1980. Adm. Liu, who died in January, wrote in his autobiography that he was "deeply impressed by its imposing magnificence and modern fighting capacity."

China purchased a decommissioned Australian carrier for scrap in 1985. Chinese companies also acquired two small Russian carriers in 1998 and 2000, both of which are now used in amusement parks.

But the real breakthrough came when a Chinese company acquired the vessel, then called Varyag, for $20 million in 1998, on the understanding that it would be towed to the gambling enclave of Macao and used as a floating casino.

The plan to use it for the navy soon became an open secret because it was visible from much of Dalian, and military enthusiasts posted regular reports, photographs and videos of its refurbishment. Still, China officially confirmed its existence only last month, when it tried to ease regional concerns by saying it would be used for "research, experiments and training."

China's Defense Ministry didn't respond to a request to comment on the sea trials Wednesday, and Xinhua said only that they "would not take a long time." "After returning from the sea trial, the aircraft carrier will continue refit and test work," Xinhua said.

Analysts say Chinese pilots are unlikely to try flying from the carrier yet, though are thought to have practiced on a land-based mock-up of the deck.

Andrei Chang, Hong Kong editor of Kanwa Defense Review, which monitors China's military, said the first tests were probably designed to check the engines—a potential weak point—and that sea trials would continue sporadically for another year or two.

Once basic tests are concluded, however, analysts said the carrier could be used for limited patrols around China's territorial waters, as well as for conducting visits to foreign countries to present China's newfound naval strength in a nonthreatening manner.

"U.S. carriers come to Hong Kong, so why shouldn't ours go to California or New York?" said Xu Guangyu, a retired Chinese general.

Most importantly, however, the carrier will give China experience to develop indigenous carriers, the first of which some defense experts say is already under construction at a shipyard in Shanghai and could be completed as soon as 2012.
China, like most countries, considers at least three carriers necessary to be effective, so that one can be in action, one in transit and one in port for repairs and resupplies, according to Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan. But each active one requires its own carrier group, which could take at least 10 years to develop, according to retired Chinese navy Rear Adm. Yin Zhuo.

"China's 'starter carrier' is of very limited military utility, and will primarily serve to confer prestige on a rising great power, help the military master basic procedures, and to project a bit of power," wrote Andrew Erickson, an associate professor in the U.S. Naval War College's Strategic Research Department, in a research note.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576499423267407488.html

Write to Jeremy Page at jeremy.page@wsj.com

Sigaba
08-11-2011, 07:19
FWIW, the U.S. Naval War College's China Maritime Studies Institute has published a number of papers on China's growing sea power. The CMSI's portal is here (http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Publications.aspx).

Similarly, the Naval War College Review has published a number of articles on the growth of the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in recent issues. The review's portal is here (http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review.aspx) with links to recent issues to the right and down.

The Reaper
08-11-2011, 15:52
We regularly allow port calls by our allies' ships.

Not sure the PLA Navy would qualify, based on their previous aggressive actions.

They also have to demonstrate that their carrier could sail that far, yet to be proven by the ex-Varyag.

TR

akv
08-11-2011, 18:15
We regularly allow port calls by our allies' ships. Not sure the PLA Navy would qualify, based on their previous aggressive actions. They also have to demonstrate that their carrier could sail that far, yet to be proven by the ex-Varyag.

Yes, they have a long way to go.

A bit off topic, a friend is former Swedish Navy, he told me they made a US port call in NY with " the Flagship of the Swedish Navy". Apparently we were expecting a much bigger ship, since the mooring they got was for a much larger ship, He joked "we felt so inadequate..."

Richard
08-12-2011, 08:43
Some points to consider...perhaps.

Richard :munchin

Should The United States Fear A Chinese Aircraft Carrier?
ToryReforGroup, 12 Aug 2011

Michael Horowitz, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, observed in his recent book, “The Diffusion of Military Power”, that carrier warfare has been one of the most difficult military innovations for nation states to adopt.

Carriers are expensive not only financially, but also in terms of organisational capital. Indeed, nations that have adopted carrier warfare have not only invested large sums of money into development programs, but also overhauled their personnel. Most importantly, successful carrier adoption requires decades of often risky experimentation and practical experience. With such barriers to adoption, many nations team up with existing carrier powers, while others develop cheap alternatives, such as anti-ship missiles.

For these reasons, observers should view China’s recent sea trials of the refurbished Russian carrier Varyag with scepticism.

From their very inception, aircraft carriers have significantly exceeded the cost of conventional warships. For instance, the Royal Navy’s HMS Nelson, a battleship commissioned in 1927, cost Great Britain approximately $36.4 million. That same year, the US Navy commissioned the USS Lexington and Saratoga, its second and third aircraft carriers respectively, for a cost of $45 million each. And unlike technologies associated with the age of steam—such as iron hulls, boilers, and screw-type propellers—aircraft carrier technology has little civil application. Thus the defence industry has little financial incentive to experiment with such technologies, driving up the costs for taxpayers.

More significant though is the investment in organisational capital, as carrier warfare requires navies to train sailors in new specialties, and requires significant overhaul to promotion and evaluation systems. New schools are required to train entry-level pilots, maintainers, air traffic controllers and nuclear propulsion specialists; and it takes decades to train leaders capable of managing squadrons and ships. It also means creating a promotion system which rewards these new skill sets. Even the leadership of the US Navy, one of the leading carrier powers in the inter-war period, fiercely resisted such changes, favouring battleship commanders over aviators. Yet despite the US Navy’s initial reluctance to promote aviation-related skill sets, it quickly adapted to the new form of warfare after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Indeed, as Horowitz notes, the relatively young age of both the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy may have made both institutions more receptive to experimenting with carriers and overhauling their personnel systems.

Finally, successful carrier adoption requires years, if not decades, of rigorous training and experimentation—often risky—in order to hone fully. Horowitz suggests that the Japanese Navy’s experience during combat operations in China during the late 1930s contributed to her relative advantage in carrier warfare up until the Battle of Midway, despite the fact that the US actually had more carriers. Yet the US Navy was able to learn valuable lessons after grievous setbacks during the few months of the war and, with its victory at Midway, finally offset Japan’s advantage in carrier warfare.

Although the Soviet Union was finally able to fund the construction of a handful of carriers, it failed to become a viable carrier power. The Soviet Union’s overly secretive bureaucracy squashed valuable debate and the learning process critical to fostering innovation.

Despite pouring billions into carrier development, the Soviets would only launch their first carrier, the Kiev, in 1975. Even then, the Kiev and her sister ships could only launch vertical-landing aircraft - and only a dozen at that. It wasn’t until the 1980s, with the launch of the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Varyag, that the Soviet Union had a true fleet carrier. Of course, by then the United States had a near monopoly on carriers. Thus the Soviet Union countered American carriers with cheap alternatives, such as submarines and sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

China will face similar difficulties in adopting carrier warfare. And even if China were successfully to field, man, and operate the diesel-powered ex-Varyag, she still lacks the support vessels for a true carrier battle group.

There is also the issue of American dominance in carrier technology. An American Nimitz-class carrier has an aircraft compliment roughly twice that of the ex-Varyag, and considerably greater than that of HMS Hermes and Invincible. The Nimitz-class (plus the aging USS Enterprise) don’t need to refuel either, thanks to an on-board nuclear reactor. Plus, as the old saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own, and the US Navy operates nine carrier groups, with five currently at sea. That is not counting America’s fleet of amphibious landing craft, such as the Wasp-class, with a compliment of helicopters, tilt-rotor craft, and “jump-jets” which rival those of the HMS Invincible. It is no exaggeration to state that US carrier power exceeds that of the rest of the world’s navies combined.

Will China’s carrier pose a credible threat in the Pacific? Doubtful. Much like Russia’s display of impressive wunderwaffen over the past few years, such weapons, though impressive, are unlikely to be built in sufficient numbers to challenge US power in the region. Should the US be looking for a sufficient response to growing Chinese power, it might be best not to increase military spending.

After all, it’s in the field of budget deficits that China has the edge over the United States.

http://toryreformgroup.tumblr.com/post/8801698380/crispin-burke-carrier-warfare#notes

LarryW
08-12-2011, 08:58
Richard, the article points to the pivotal issues...well done.

More significant though is the investment in organisational capital, as carrier warfare requires navies to train sailors in new specialties, and requires significant overhaul to promotion and evaluation systems. New schools are required to train entry-level pilots, maintainers, air traffic controllers and nuclear propulsion specialists; and it takes decades to train leaders capable of managing squadrons and ships. It also means creating a promotion system which rewards these new skill sets. Even the leadership of the US Navy, one of the leading carrier powers in the inter-war period, fiercely resisted such changes, favouring battleship commanders over aviators.

And TR's quite right to observe They ... have to demonstrate that their carrier could sail that far, yet to be proven by the ex-Varyag.

China's CV is probably more of a conclusion to a long-range plan and probably the end of the plan itself, more than the beginning of a naval strategy. They have a very long way to go requiring a major committment of treasure and political resolve to be competitive with the USN in CV operations. The conclusive comment in the article is IMHO the most compelling...

After all, it’s in the field of budget deficits that China has the edge over the United States.

The fight to be won with the PLAN is more of financial solvency than ships. Personally, I'm not that worried. In the end there are only two kinds of ships ... submarines and targets.

BOfH
08-12-2011, 09:58
After all, it’s in the field of budget deficits that China has the edge over the United States.



China has been developing a currency devaluation/destabilization doctrine for some time now(can't find the link at the moment), additionally, while we may attribute more cyber-warfare capability to them than they deserve, they are still a formidable foe. Like Communist Russia, they already know that matching US military might may be a useless endeavor, it's a lot easier to go for the soft underbelly of the capitalist machine, the technology and financial infrastructure than anything else. IMHO, this is an attempt to gain some legitimacy in the world military theater, and nothing more. With that said, we must never let our guard down, and decide that expenditures in the name of defending this country are optional(Mr. Frank, how you doin? :rolleyes: ), as echoed numerous times by those here on this forum and others in the MSM, we need to refocus our spending on protecting that soft underbelly while not compromising on conventional defenses

My .02, YMMV

tonyz
08-15-2011, 05:46
A brief glimpse of the refitting - see embedded video.

Beijing Review.com

UPDATED: August 12, 2011

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/special/2011-08/12/content_383289.htm

Though the aircraft carrier was refitted from an old Soviet-era one, it will soon become a new member of China's navy. The second-hand carrier has provided a crucial reference for China's own research and development into large-scale ship building.

Varyag was built in Ukraine by the Soviet military in the 1980s. Construction stopped by 1992, with the ship structurally complete but without electronics.
The ship was sold and arrived in China in 2001. In 2009, Varyag was hauled into a shipyard for renovation. Eleven months later, new inverted rails were put on deck. Cabins aboard were transformed with complete seal-off designs. It was also painted with inorganic zinc-rich primer.

It's been equipped with landing and take-off decks, a radar system, artillery, as well as missile system among other features. The carrier is refitted to hold 60 advanced aircraft and match the basic functions of the carriers of other nations.

tonyz
08-15-2011, 16:56
I didn't want to just start a new thread and thought that this may be of some interest and relevance here. When this TED presentation is considered along with the bullet train posts and the aircraft carrier posts it becomes even more interesting.

The TED lectures are generally quite good - this one gets you thinking.

Martin Jacques: Understanding the rise of China.

Speaking at a TED Salon in London, economist Martin Jacques asks: How do we in the West make sense of China and its phenomenal rise?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

tonyz
08-18-2011, 09:50
This story is a couple of weeks old (our debt ceiling issue dominated the media) but such a deep-sea submersible may be of interest given, among other things, all of the undersea cables in existence.

Beijing Review.com.cn

UPDATED: July-28-2011

China's Submersible Jiaolong Sets New Diving Record

Chinese manned deep-sea submersible Jiaolong reached a depth of 5,143 meters in its third test dive in eastern Pacific Ocean Thursday morning (Beijing time), said the State Oceanic Administration (SOA).

The submersible took photos, shoot video, and made topography scan at the ocean floor.

The submersible entered the water at about 3 a.m., currently in sound conditions.
It successfully reached a depth of 5,057 meters during a test dive conducted Tuesday. Such a depth means Jiaolong could reach over 70 percent of the seabed in the world, said the SOA.

The SOA said the submersible is expected to have a 7,000-meter test dive in 2012.
Jiaolong is the world's first manned submersible designed to reach the depth of 7,000 meters below sea level, according to Xu Qinan, chief designer of the submersible.

China, initiating the Jiaolong project in 2002, is the fifth country to send a man 3,500 meters below sea level, following the United States, France, Russia and Japan.

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/science/txt/2011-07/28/content_379748.htm

(Xinhua News Agency July 28, 2011)

BOfH
08-18-2011, 10:08
such a deep-sea submersible may be of interest given, among other things, all of the undersea cables in existence.


Could be, though history has shown its far easier to drop an anchor on them, or blame the Mossad or NSA :D The cable landing points are more vulnerable though, due to their accessibility, the flipside is that they are also easier to repair.

tonyz
08-18-2011, 10:17
The cable landing points are more vulnerable though, due to their accessibility...

Given the story, accessibility (to the cables themselves as opposed to the landing points) may have become less of a problem.

The Reaper
08-18-2011, 17:27
Wow, who knew that Chinese claims were given such credibility?:rolleyes:

This is the same country that has to buy Russian aircraft engines because they cannot make their own work properly, is it not?

TR

tonyz
08-18-2011, 17:51
This is the same country that has to buy Russian aircraft engines because they cannot make their own work properly, is it not?

TR

True. And, I agree that it is prudent to take reports coming out of China with a grain of salt.

But, if they can dive that deep the cables are particulalry vulnerable to these folks.

The Chi-comms are known hackers - I would speculate that those cables certainly make tempting targets for Chi-comms messing with financial infastructure and other goodies.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission - created by the United States Congress in October 2000 has commented on the particular vulnerability of undersea fiber optic cable systems. Below is a link to a report from January 2011.

U.S.-China Economic and Security

Review Commission Staff Report

January 2011

(Information current as of November 2010)

Page 39 and 40 of this report discusses the particular vulnerability of undersea fiber optic cable.

http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2011/FINALREPORT_TheNationalSecurityImplicationsofInves tmentsandProductsfromThePRCintheTelecommunications Sector.pdf

If the Chi-comms can really go that low...I've reflected after a shower and I am CERTAIN that they can go that low...it is getting back up that becomes the trick.

BOfH
08-18-2011, 20:58
Entire post


A few things to consider:

1. We give the Chinese more credit than they deserve, and the MSM along with the various security providers out there aren't helping either. For every Chinese hacker, there are 100+ compromised mahcines in China, along with other nation states that have well developed CW capabilities/doctrine, I wouldn't be quick to blame the Chinese for all malicious traffic that comes from their corner of the world, though most malicious traffic does come from them. There is at least one nation state that I can think of, that is quite adept at pinning the blame elsewhere, especially on countries that sell weapons to their enemies. That aside, China does have the motive(the need to stay competitive and keep costs low, what better way to steal R&D than do it yourself) and the capabilities.
2. The prevalence of strong encryption, as mandated by various federal, state and international laws and regulations on the commercial sector, severely limits the effectiveness of traditional wiretapping/network sniffing, combined with the fact that tapping fiber is no easy task. Remember, while Ivy Bells was a spectacular feat, that was over 30 years ago, and quite a bit has changed since then.
3. Path of least cost and resistance dictates that it is far easier to breach a secured network(you are going to have to take my word on this as a quasi SME) than send a submersible down and tap a single under-sea fiber line which will only give you a fraction of the picture(there are many domestic and internations under-sea optical lines currently in use).

tonyz
08-18-2011, 21:36
A few things to consider:

1. We give the Chinese more credit than they deserve, and the MSM along with the various security providers out there aren't helping either. For every Chinese hacker, there are 100+ compromised mahcines in China, along with other nation states that have well developed CW capabilities/doctrine, I wouldn't be quick to blame the Chinese for all malicious traffic that comes from their corner of the world, though most malicious traffic does come from them. There is at least one nation state that I can think of, that is quite adept at pinning the blame elsewhere, especially on countries that sell weapons to their enemies. That aside, China does have the motive(the need to stay competitive and keep costs low, what better way to steal R&D than do it yourself) and the capabilities.
2. The prevalence of strong encryption, as mandated by various federal, state and international laws and regulations on the commercial sector, severely limits the effectiveness of traditional wiretapping/network sniffing, combined with the fact that tapping fiber is no easy task. Remember, while Ivy Bells was a spectacular feat, that was over 30 years ago, and quite a bit has changed since then.
3. Path of least cost and resistance dictates that it is far easier to breach a secured network(you are going to have to take my word on this as a quasi SME) than send a submersible down and tap a single under-sea fiber line which will only give you a fraction of the picture(there are many domestic and internations under-sea optical lines currently in use).

From BofH post #42
"China has been developing a currency devaluation/destabilization doctrine for some time now(can't find the link at the moment), additionally, while we may attribute more cyber-warfare capability to them than they deserve, they are still a formidable foe. Like Communist Russia, they already know that matching US military might may be a useless endeavor, it's a lot easier to go for the soft underbelly of the capitalist machine, the technology and financial infrastructure than anything else. IMHO, this is an attempt to gain some legitimacy in the world military theater, and nothing more. With that said, we must never let our guard down, and decide that expenditures in the name of defending this country are optional(Mr. Frank, how you doin? ), as echoed numerous times by those here on this forum and others in the MSM, we need to refocus our spending on protecting that soft underbelly while not compromising on conventional defenses"



I hear you - if you are a Ron Paul supporter - it will be a trifecta.

BOfH
08-18-2011, 23:44
...if you are a Ron Paul supporter - it will be a trifecta.

Hell No!! :eek: :D

On a more serious note, I'd start worrying about the Israeli's... :D

ETA: In my line of work a little paranoia is healthy ;) , and I have my reasons as well. Consider:

a) Verizon's data breach report only gets more depressing by the year. (http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-2011_en_xg.pdf)
b) Some companies are canning their InfoSec dept. in favor of hacker insurance, essentially saying "It's gonna happen anyway, why spend all this money trying to prevent it" (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/080811-defcon-anonymous.html)
c) At a recent briefing/conference that I attended, the Asst. Deputy Director of the FBI started his talk by stating "The current cyber security situation is untenable and unsustainable. The global economy cannot continue to absorb the costs associated with these breaches and the subsequent fallout."

China is like that pesky little brother that always manages to get into your room and your stuff, no matter how sure you are about locking the door. He then brags to his friends about that porn stash under the mattress, and makes sure that you can never live it down. In the meantime, he wasn't picking any locks or kicking in any doors , he was just piggy backing behind your mom when she went in to clean.

There's nothing fancy about what they do(most of the time), there's just a lot of low hanging fruit ripe for the picking, and their "eating" it by the bushel.