Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

[Lee Delbert]

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily.

[ordinary dude]

Ships take years to build and commission, your outline will take over a couple decades, and we have'nt got to the funding part yet. There is simply no money for this kind of shopping spree. And I don't think the Russians would even entertain the idea of PLAN outnumber the RN Pacific fleet in terms of Sovermenny destroyers.

Nuclear Subs and Carriers take even longer to construct, you start building them now if you plan on using them in 10 years time.

Sorry this is not a game and China simply does'nt have the money.

[Nethappy]

There issimply no need for an aircraft carrier now in PLAN, it just a total waste of resources, which can be better apply else were.
It would be also be a better idea type 052C DDG instead of buying Sovermenny class DDG as I believe it have much protein of being developed into a world-class DDG and it a good idea to china to improve it technology and ship building skill. As it can't rely on Russian forever.

[bd popeye]

Lee Delbert sez...
For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily

Ya' really think so? Is there any verified proof that the 052 class DDG has a Aegis type system??? 12 Sov's?? That's all? The Pacific fleet has 24 Arliegh Burkes and 12 Ticos and 6 aircraft carriers with full air wings. Not to mention LA class subs. One Ohio class SSGN bristling with 154 cruise misslies.
Did you know that the USN has installed new sonar sensors on all it's subs??
A sonar so improved it gives a single sub the capablities of the entire fleet of LA class? (this according to the article)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/lockheed-upgrades-us-submarine-acoustics-under-arci-program-updated/index.php

What sort of ASW does the PLAN have? What about a viable ASW helo? what about logistics? What about foward bases? What will the PLAN look like now and in the future?

Ok Lee..given that limited bit of info what makes you think that the force you discribe could defeat the US Pacific Fleet?

Maybe some day years from now(about 10-15), if need be, the PLAN will have a force as you discribed. But unless they improve in the areas of ASW, helos, 2nd 3rd strike capablity and logistics it may take even longer. I hope there is never any sort of confrontation between the US and PRC. Peace is the only way!

There is simply no need for an aircraft carrier now in PLAN, it just a total waste of resources, which can be better apply else were.
It would be also be a better idea type 052C DDG instead of buying Sovermenny class DDG as I believe it have much protein of being developed into a world-class DDG and it a good idea to china to improve it technology and ship building skill. As it can't rely on Russian forever.


I agree with all you said except about an aircraft carrier. I really think the PLAN needs an large LPH type ship...20,000 tons or so with the ablity to carry about 36-40 helos of various types for varied missions. Plus 1000-1200 marines.

I 100% agree that the PRC cannot rely on Russia for ever.

[tphuang]

Listen to the current outcry over China's naval buildup, if China builds up as you mentionned, it will get into a huge naval race against Japan, India and possibly South Korea. Especially Japan, it has the economy, technology, support from US and the shipbuilding industry to crank out Kongos, Oyashio subs and other ships at speeds that none of the Chinese shipyards can do. And let's face it, the USN is not going to let anyone approach its capability.

And no, there is no need for any more 956, please! and songs? I think China has shifted production of Songs to Yuan. If you look at China's currently mass produced ships, it's all subs, type 22 FACs and transport ships. This clearly shows that its focus is still where it has always been at.

[Baibar of Jalat]

Not answering anyone question directly, but reading early unified German history for an essay. the german doctrine Tirpitz designed to protect German trade interests in an era of rising protectionist policies in the world called for the maintaining of 2/3 diadvantage towards to the British navy.

For example if Germany had 60 warships, then Britian had to have 90 warships. the german knew the British navy had to patrol a vast area to maintain its colonies. the german believed the brits to remain supreme had no choice but maintain this advantage.

Firstly in regards to United States and China, I note history never repeats itself however there are similairities to britain and germany. Could as the German believed could cause similiar problems for the US.

If the dominate power tried to maintain its supremecy like Britain, it would face shortages of trained manpower if kept on building more ships, money taxpayers in america as in britain are not militaristic they want to see better services, again money could they afford the extra expenditure, there are many more problems but i am saying China should adopt a similiar policy instead of trying match the US in numbers.

[IDonT]

There is a famous story in World War II in the Island of Malta (or was it Crete). The British were evacuating the island as the Germans were coming. The British Admiral offered to send the entire Med. Fleet to support the British army. The British general was of course very concern about the losses of ships, especially battleships. The famous reply was: "General, it takes 3 years to build a battleship, while it takes 3 centuries to build a naval tradition."

What I'm trying to say is, does the PLAN have enough Admirals, Captains, Commanders, deck officers, and qualified sailors to effectively man the number of warships you are proposing? It takes a long time to build a world class navy.

Not answering anyone question directly, but reading early unified German history for an essay. the german doctrine Tirpitz designed to protect German trade interests in an era of rising protectionist policies in the world called for the maintaining of 2/3 diadvantage towards to the British navy.

For example if Germany had 60 warships, then Britian had to have 90 warships. the german knew the British navy had to patrol a vast area to maintain its colonies. the german believed the brits to remain supreme had no choice but maintain this advantage.

Firstly in regards to United States and China, I note history never repeats itself however there are similairities to britain and germany. Could as the German believed could cause similiar problems for the US.

If the dominate power tried to maintain its supremecy like Britain, it would face shortages of trained manpower if kept on building more ships, money taxpayers in america as in britain are not militaristic they want to see better services, again money could they afford the extra expenditure, there are many more problems but i am saying China should adopt a similiar policy instead of trying match the US in numbers.

The British doctrine was called a "two-power standard", meaning the Royal navy must be as numerous and as powerful as the next 2 largest navy in the world (germany and france). Admiral Fisher, the creator of the Dreadnaught, changed RN policy and concentrated the bulk of the RN battlehips in homewaters, to watch over the German Fleet, with the colonies patrolled by armored and light cruisers.

Currently, the USN have a "17-power standard" it is larger and more powerful than the next 17 navies combined!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers. The Navy likes to call the big Nimitz class carriers "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory" -- all two dozen American carriers of all classes add up to about 75 acres of deck space. Deckspace is probably a good measure of combat power. The rest of the world's carriers have about 15 acres of deck space, one fifth that of America's

The PLAN have a lot of catching up to do.

[bd popeye]

IDonT sez..
America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers.

Does that include the USN's 11 LHA/LHD ships? Ships that are larger than any other countries aircraft carriers?

The PLAn does have a long way to go. I don't think they will try to catchup.They just need a force big enough to protect them selves from possible foes.

[MIGleader]

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily.

let me rip this apart piece by piece...
first off, it would be nice if you took a pause and put in a period once in a while.

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US

The two 52c curently are feild testing the latest of chinese systems. The technology is not mature enough for mass production(havnt you heard the APAR on one might have overheated?) Future ships will have even better systems. On the other hand though, sovremenny;s are 80s tech that no navy with funding the sive of the PLAN's should be sailing. The russians build them as slow as hell(more than 3 years, a year more than the time a chiense shipyard takes to build a DDG). quality cannot be guarenteed.

I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice

China does not even have a single carrier in serivce, yet you speak of 5 battle groups? not only would that require excessive spending on carriers, but their escorts aswell. China will wait until its carrier technology is mature before attempting such a venture

having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

Song is 90s tech. The yuan is modern, yet too modern for mass production. Im sure someday China may have 12 SSNs, but HOW ABOUT WAITING FOR THE SECOND ONE TO ENTER SERVICE? you rush things.


now, remeber, DDGs, carriers, and submarines might get the most media attention, but by no means the power of a good navy. a good navy needs fleet Aux, LPDs, and frigates aswell. Good ship-ship communication is vital. Chinas C41 is very infantile. having 12 DDGs is nothing if you cant coordinate them.

[IDonT]

IDonT sez..


Does that include the USN's 11 LHA/LHD ships? Ships that are larger than any other countries aircraft carriers?

The PLAn does have a long way to go. I don't think they will try to catchup.They just need a force big enough to protect them selves from possible foes.

That includes the LHA and LHDs.
Click on the link, it shows the world's carriers in their exact scale

[Lee Delbert]

Yes you are all right china currently doesn't need an aircraft carrier but come to think of if a confrontation with US occur how could China launch a Naval and airstrike against US mainland? I believe China should not rely of Nuclear Balistic Missiles it will be destructive in world.

Regarding the ships even Chinese made ships were not as advance as the US were, you should not forget China now possess anti ship missiles which is faster and longer range compared to the US anti ship missiles. China has an edge.

Yes China hasn't enough capability to build such a number of ships but if they will increase the number of shipyards and expand the current shipyards China will have that capability.

regarding military build up or arms race South Korean economy is definitely smaller the China and they can't win and how could India do it? look at the poverty rate in India and its economy I believe India must focus of its economy first than its armed forces, regarding Japan they have pledge to spend only 1% of their GDP to the defense and with that amount of resources they can't catch up if China will increase its spending and start an arms race.

China can have those amount of funds to spend probably using some of the dollar reserves ( China was now rank one in terms of reserves in the world ) and triming down corruption can also help China to save money and it can be used for the Armed forces.

regarding Frigates China has already numerous frigate and probably a stealth one was underdevelopment already so I think after mass producing it some day will be already enough.

[Roger604]

China does not even have a blue water navy!!! This is just a pipe dream.

First, the navy has to protect the shores and the country.

Second, the navy has to make Taiwan reunite.

After that, China will have easier access to the open ocean. After China breaks out of the first island chain, the second island chains should be easier.

[Nethappy]

China shouldn't be spending much money on Navy Size building at the moment. I believe it should continue it prototype and test ship building policy. As these ship would give them an increase combat capability and an way to continuosly refind and develop it technology.

[IDonT]

Yes you are all right china currently doesn't need an aircraft carrier but come to think of if a confrontation with US occur how could China launch a Naval and airstrike against US mainland? I believe China should not rely of Nuclear Balistic Missiles it will be destructive in world.

Regarding the ships even Chinese made ships were not as advance as the US were, you should not forget China now possess anti ship missiles which is faster and longer range compared to the US anti ship missiles. China has an edge.

Yes China hasn't enough capability to build such a number of ships but if they will increase the number of shipyards and expand the current shipyards China will have that capability.

regarding military build up or arms race South Korean economy is definitely smaller the China and they can't win and how could India do it? look at the poverty rate in India and its economy I believe India must focus of its economy first than its armed forces, regarding Japan they have pledge to spend only 1% of their GDP to the defense and with that amount of resources they can't catch up if China will increase its spending and start an arms race.

China can have those amount of funds to spend probably using some of the dollar reserves ( China was now rank one in terms of reserves in the world ) and triming down corruption can also help China to save money and it can be used for the Armed forces.

regarding Frigates China has already numerous frigate and probably a stealth one was underdevelopment already so I think after mass producing it some day will be already enough.

1.) Having faster and longer range anti-ship missles are useless unless you have an very good guidance system that will work in a hostile ECM environment the the USN can generate. Also, the faster the missiles, the easier it is to spoof. IF a missile traveling at Mach 3 losses tracking for just a few seconds, it will be off course by dozens of miles.

2.) F-18 EF hornet have a much longer range than PLAN antiship missiles. China does not have the edge.

3.) Japan is only spends 1% of GDP on the military because of POLITICAL constraints. All their politicians have to do is inflate the China threat, made easier by your naval build up, and you will see the Nihon Kaigun again.

4.) Korea has the money to build a world class navy. In fact, they are building them right now.

5.) Dollar reserves are better spent on infastructure projects. Though China may have the world's largest middle class, it also has the world's largest peasant population. Working to make their lives better ensures a stronger country.

6.) Again, you still have not addressed the crewing problems and the lack of experience personnel in the PLAN that can adequately command and crew these ships your proposing.

[bd popeye]

This is a good discussion. My kind of meat..:) Excellent post all.

IDonT sez...
Again, you still have not addressed the crewing problems and the lack of experience personnel in the PLAN that can adequately command and crew these ships your proposing.

IDonT is so right on point with that question. You know the PLAN can build all the ships it wants to. But if the personell are not trained properly and if they don't take those ships to sea for regular training. All the modern ships in the world willl be for naught if they cannot operate properly.

Making the PLAN a true blue water navy will not happen overnight. It will take years. Roger 604 assesment of how to do this is correct.

[isthvan]

IDonT is so right on point with that question. You know the PLAN can build all the ships it wants to. But if the personell are not trained properly and if they don't take those ships to sea for regular training. All the modern ships in the world willl be for naught if they cannot operate properly.

Making the PLAN a true blue water navy will not happen overnight. It will take years. Roger 604 assesment of how to do this is correct.

I agree with you… Big fleet with modern ships does not mean anything without properly trained crews… For example look at Falkland’s war. Argentina had at the time one of the most modern navy’s in the world. They had 2 Sheffield class DDG, 4 Meko360 class DDG, Meko140 class corvettes, aircraft carrier, type209 class subs…
But they lacked logistic capabilities, trained crews, ships had maintenance problems and they lacked tactical and strategic knowledge to conduct that kind of naval operations…
Big fleet without trained crews, logistics and strategic knowledge is joust very expensive target for oppositions target practice.

[Nethappy]

1) The PLAN should spend more money in improving the YJ-62 which already have a good range of 280km. They need to increase the capability of it guidance system to cope with modern hostile ECM environment, possibly lower the RCS if possible and lower the flight altitude to under 20m.
The YJ-62 wouldn't give PLAN an edge over USN even without F-18 EF hornet because they have the Tomahawk which out range anything the PLAN have. Nevertheless it put PLAN Anti Ship missile hand in hand if not better then Missile in most navy in Asia.

2) The PLAN should develop Tomahawk style anti ship missile before moving on to the Land attack version as guidance system, radio altimeter and other possible techology for the anti ship version can be transfered or develop from currently YJ-62 technology making it easier to develop as it leave out the complex guidance, terrain comparison sytem needed for the land attack version. If the AsCM have an range in excess of 1000km, it would also give the PLAN an huge edge over any navy in asia. But this system would need support from Land Base Range or preferably AEW&C system for target acquiring.

3) The PLAN should further develop the HQ-9 or preferably a new sam system based on PL-12 active radar-homing terminal guidance technology. As they still need to improve overall air defence capablity as the currenty HQ-9 is based on 1980 era technology.

5) It must spend more time and resources in it anti submarine capability.

5) As I said before China shouldn't be wasting it resources in increasing the Navy Size at the moment. They should continue it prototype and test ship building policy. As these ship help China refind and develop it technology and give PLAN personnel a chance to refurbish it crew training doctrine and gain more experience. This would also provide PLAN with mid-high tech ship to train there crew for future masses build ship. For short term it would slighty increase the national defence capablites.

[MIGleader]

280km is only the range of the export yj-62, according to MTCR. The chiense version is believed to able to do over 300km.

ChangFeng (CF), HongNiao (HN), and DongHai (DH) are current chiense cruise missle projects, with ranges up to 1800km. Building cruise missles must be accompanied by extensive TERCOM maps, or sattelites. China must aquire these first. I believe the PLA in 2005 began deploying an 1000km cruise missle.

[Nethappy]

280km is an confirmed figure, so I just used that. If the missle exceed 320km which is possible It would give PLAN the longest missile in any other Navy in Asia with the exception of USN and with an 1000+km ship launch AsCM it could possiblilty challage the IN Aircraft carrier battle group.

[petty officer1]

Numbers in size will never be a good idea... In this time.

IF AS YOU say china sould mass produce all of their most advanced ships, after 10 years, when every ship is finished. Our America Navy would be a decade ahead aready.(DDX, Ohio, aircarft carrier with f-22,f-35). china will be a big Red Navy compare to America 's state of art navy AGAIN!

But china is smart enough to not do that. Most chinese advance ships(include subs) is used more as testing platform(For now). Build them to conduct test and play war game and joint excercise with other nation to gain experience.

Build about one or two of them just for training officers and testing gear is MUCH cheaper building a big fleet that will STILL lose to American Navy...;)

China use those saved money to do research, training officer, design new ship, excercise, gaining experience, help rural poor, improve the standart of living, develop more advance civilan technology industry, IT, fight corruption, trade with other coutry.

In 20 years when China is really strong in money, high sprit, every one is rich. that will be the time to build the REAL chinese war fleet.

Chinese don't make the same mistake twice, they survive 5 thousand years not just for nothing. Not like Russia(with out money), Not like Nazi (BAD human right problem), and not like USA (Look at our kids in school today:mad: )

China is looking for a Long time plan.

China don't want to defend against America.

China Don't even want to be America.

China want to be something is better, stronger then America!

Kids in US need to wake up, the time is near

Petty officer1, Best wise.

[Lee Delbert]

IDonT Crewing problem can be addressed easily with intensive trainings on the sea, ofcourse if you build more ships you need to train your crews more it was already actually a cycle.

Regarding the F18 E/F these are expensive, this will be questionable actually if US will deploy a lot of these aircrafts, US is now focusing of its F22 and we should not forget the most comonly used aircraft by US and its allies was F14, F15, F16's and these cannot match the latest anti aircraft missiles of China which has far longer range than the anti ship missiles attatched to these aircrafts.

Regarding South Korea, China was the 4th largest economy in the world while South Korea was 11th with this gap we can clearly see China has far more resources than Korea and with more resourcs you will already have an edge in an arms race.

Regarding Japan they already have a huge debt with 150% of their GDP and I don't think they will be willing to spend more for the military rather than trimming down their huge debt.

If the guidance systems of the missiles were not good enough for a very fast speed of anti ship missiles, as long as China have the ship itself already you can just simply upgrade them with new devices and weapons systems as you continue to develop the technology.

petty officer1 I am not reffering to build these ships for a decade I am reffering also to shipyard expansion in order to build all of these probably within 5 years of time.

[Finn McCool]

As we all have seen, it will be extremely difficault for the PLAN to truly make itself a blue water navy AND catch up with the USN. Well, if you can't win by the rules of the game, play a different game.;)

China should first establish rudimentary blue-water capability, such as an infrastructure of logistics, amphibious capability beyond Taiwan and the ability to defeat all the reigonal navies.

Then China should increase its advantage in areas that it is already ahead in to defeat the USN. This would consist of improving its anti-ship missles and making large amounst of expendable fast attack craft firing deadly accurate missles in (relatively) large quantities. This would be followed up by atttacks from frigates and DDGs that can cover themselves with SAMs. All the while ballistic missles are raining down on the USN's heads.

Also, like I have always said, the PLAN needs an Indian Ocean base to safeguard its oil supplies aggainst potential rivals *cough* India *cough*

[Nethappy]

Lee Delbert: Yes, China is the 4st largest economy in the world, but in contrast it also have to take care of and satisfy the largest population in the world.

But china is smart enough to not do that. Most chinese advance ships(include subs) is used more as testing platform(For now). Build them to conduct test and play war game and joint excercise with other nation to gain experience.
I been trying to said that for my last 2 post.

Regarding the F18 E/F these are expensive, this will be questionable actually if US will deploy a lot of these aircrafts, US is now focusing of its F22 and we should not forget the most comonly used aircraft by US and its allies was F14, F15, F16's and these cannot match the latest anti aircraft missiles of China which has far longer range than the anti ship missiles attatched to these aircrafts.

This F-18 E/F are deploy in US CVG, they a able to launch Harpoon at the PLAN DDG outside the range of their air defence range and these plane has a combat radius of about 700km effectively keep the US CVG out PLAN anti ship missile range.

That why the chinese need a 1000+ km preferable 1500km anti ship cruise missile and an operational AEW&C system.

1) It would give PLAN the capablity or a chance of hitting back at the CVG if any hostile occur.
2) Limiting INS Aircraft Carrier advantage if India decide to obstruct oil supplies in the Indian Ocean.

PLAN resource should be use into improve it training progam, techology, gaining experience, improving infrastructure and logistics.

Once again China, should not waste resource of building the size of it navel until it's truely ready for in one. But it does need to have a force capble of making people think twice before doing anything.

[Roger604]

As we all have seen, it will be extremely difficault for the PLAN to truly make itself a blue water navy AND catch up with the USN. Well, if you can't win by the rules of the game, play a different game.;)

China should first establish rudimentary blue-water capability, such as an infrastructure of logistics, amphibious capability beyond Taiwan and the ability to defeat all the reigonal navies.

Then China should increase its advantage in areas that it is already ahead in to defeat the USN. This would consist of improving its anti-ship missles and making large amounst of expendable fast attack craft firing deadly accurate missles in (relatively) large quantities. This would be followed up by atttacks from frigates and DDGs that can cover themselves with SAMs. All the while ballistic missles are raining down on the USN's heads.

Also, like I have always said, the PLAN needs an Indian Ocean base to safeguard its oil supplies aggainst potential rivals *cough* India *cough*

I think your multi-pronged approach accurately describes the current decision-making of the Chinese leadership: rudimentary blue-water navy, cutting-edge "assymetrical technologies" and maintaining a viable nuclear deterrent (with Jin and Shang class subs).

I would add that you might be mistaken about not being able to catch up to the USN. US technological edge is based on the US economy. A growing number of observers have been saying that the US economy is a big speculative bubble and a "readjustment" is likely in the near future.

Finally, I don't see why China has to be rivals with India.

[chicket9]

Yes yes.

Nihon Kaigun, I've seen enough of it already. Nearly 60 destroyers and 20-30 world class SSKs, I think Japan has far too much for her needs. Anyway thats just my opinion.

China's pace is satisfactory, no need to rush it more. This was some growth rate not many expected to see, and now in the last six years, PLAN has acquired some 60+ ships...from destroyers to auxilaries, from SSKs to Landing craft...any more or faster growth will not be currency managable or personnel changes too.

Just wait till China finalizes its destroyer and frigate designs, then you may see series production begin.

I think China should be in a position to have a bigger and more powerful navy though. Afterall, I think if everyone did look at China's perspective, China is surrounded by decent sized threats.

Whereas everyone in Asia is responding to China's growth, China has to deal with quite a few GROWING navies...China has the right to modernize and expand as long as it does not happen in a sudden burst of rate like that during the Cold War.

Japan far out...thats one heck of a powerful navy and I'm not liking it at all.

Korea...yea, building those AAW destroyers.

USN...still maintains dominance and its not in number of ships, its in the capability of their platforms.

Russian Navy...already outnumbered, why is Russia anymore concerned about PLAN?

Australia...those guys have big egos...again an expanding navy.

[Su-34]

Even in 2010, Japan's Navy would still be superior to the PLA Navy. However, by 2020, the PLAN would have achieved a breakthrough in nuclear submarine, diesel submarine, and destroyer technology that would allow PLAN to have the second-best Navy second only to USN Pacific Fleet between the year 2030-2040.

So, obviously, it would take PLAN another 3 decades before it truly reaches "blue-water capability".

[Nethappy]

I dun see the Japanese surface fleet to be that strong. The 4 Konga class as go they are as good as the USN AB DDG. BUt everything the 50 destory are armed with Sea Sparrow with expection of the 9 DDG (Konga: SM-2, the other SM-1), SSM-1B (150KM) or Harpoon AsM.
There sub and ASW capability is what make it the navy powerful.

China 3 Sovremenny with one more coming and all these need genation of DDG (2 TYPE 052C, 2 TYPE 052B and 2 TYPE 051C) and 19 older DDG. If PLAN can give the crew enough training it has one of strongest DDG force in Asia.

The TYPE 054 I think it a good ship, with good over all capability.

It a good idea to build a Type 054 to escort each of the TYPE 052C and TYPE 051C. I like the idea of a combind air defence of Altair RIF/ HQ-9 medium- to long-range, HQ-7 (FM-90) combind with AK-630/ Type 730 Short to point defence. It should be quite capable if they get the rite training.

[MIGleader]

This F-18 E/F are deploy in US CVG, they a able to launch Harpoon at the PLAN DDG outside the range of their air defence range and these plane has a combat radius of about 700km effectively keep the US CVG out PLAN anti ship missile range.

So? thw harpoon is slow and can be shot down by the hq-9 or a CIWS. If China chooses to opearte its destroyers near shore, ground aircraft can handle the f-18s, along with SAMs.

That why the chinese need a 1000+ km preferable 1500km anti ship cruise missile and an operational AEW&C system.

1) It would give PLAN the capablity or a chance of hitting back at the CVG if any hostile occur.
2) Limiting INS Aircraft Carrier advantage if India decide to obstruct oil supplies in the Indian Ocean.
for the most part, china and india are friends and soon possible co-memebers of the SCO. Relations wont deteriorate so quickly, and by the time they do, china will have it's own carrier. But, yes a 1500 crusie missle would be nice.

[Nethappy]

So? thw harpoon is slow and can be shot down by the hq-9 or a CIWS.
Slow, but exceptionally low which make it harder to engage and under certain weather condition hard to detect at long range. But the same go for the yj-62.

If China chooses to opearte its destroyers near shore, ground aircraft can handle the f-18s, along with SAMs.
Ground aircraft yes, but not SAM the HQ-9 has an maximum range of 200km and S-300PMU has 90km, while the Harpoon has an max operation range of greater then 112km the SLAM-ER has an operation range of over 278 which mean the f-18 can release their missile outside the SAM range.

for the most part, china and india are friends and soon possible co-memebers of the SCO. Relations wont deteriorate so quickly, and by the time they do, china will have it's own carrier. But, yes a 1500 crusie missle would be nice.

India may join SCO or they may also join US book of allied.

[Finn McCool]

Think China is going to take a lesson from the Iraq War and apply it to naval doctrine; the US cannot fight an assymetrical war. So China will give itself a navy capable of defeating any regional navy, but will not use its capital ships to fight the US. It would use expendable DDGs, FACs, and subs to fire as many missles at an isolated CBG and overwhelm the defences. I wrote quite a bit about it on Defence Talk.

To deal with reigonal navies, then yes, the Chinese should aim for a fleet that is capable in all areas and is capable of defending itself.

[MIGleader]

Slow, but exceptionally low which make it harder to engage and under certain weather condition hard to detect at long range. But the same
go for the yj-62
Very true. But long range detection isnt essential, nor practical with CIWS.

Ground aircraft yes, but not SAM the HQ-9 has an maximum range of 200km and S-300PMU has 90km, while the Harpoon has an max operation range of greater then 112km the SLAM-ER has an operation range of over 278 which mean the f-18 can release their missile outside the SAM range.
The s-300 pmu2 has a range of 200 also. Thats enough to cover Harpoon. Slammer is a little harder to intercept, but i do remeber the s-300 being valid against cruise missles as well as aircraft.


India may join SCO or they may also join US book of allied.
or both

[Nethappy]

Very true. But long range detection isnt essential, nor practical with CIWS.
If you relied on your CIWS as your only defence after a salvo of AsM you as good as dead. Long rangedetection is essential to your SAM to allow a muti layer air defence.

The s-300 pmu2 has a range of 200 also. Thats enough to cover Harpoon. Slammer is a little harder to intercept, but i do remeber the s-300 being valid against cruise missles as well as aircraft.

Valid against cruise but how effective it is, you gotta remeneber these missile fly as low as 20m.

or both
Highly unlikey

[isthvan]

So? thw harpoon is slow and can be shot down by the hq-9 or a CIWS. If China chooses to opearte its destroyers near shore, ground aircraft can handle the f-18s, along with SAMs.

Yes that’s what CIWS are for... S-300 and HQ-9 can shot down Harpoon but what is the range for target that is Harpoons size? How many targets can S-300 engage simultaneously?
The S-300 missile is guided by the 30N6E phased array radar, which can direct 12 missiles to engage 6 targets simultaneously. So you think that there will be only 8-9 Harpoons lunched? And who will defend the rest of the fleet during attack on ADM destroyers?

If you choose to operate destroyers near shore why have you build them? They are not made for costal defenses... Why not use FAC instead?

Ps.
Why are everybody obsessed only with number of ships and range of missiles? They alone don’t worth a shit… What matters is training and tactical and strategic knowledge… Israelis in 1973 destroyed 11 Arab ships with Gabriel missile. Gabriel1 had only 20km range. Arab had Styx (range 45 - 80km)… Israelis used better tactic and win..

[MIGleader]

Yes that’s what CIWS are for... S-300 and HQ-9 can shot down Harpoon but what is the range for target that is Harpoons size? How many targets can S-300 engage simultaneously?
The S-300 missile is guided by the 30N6E phased array radar, which can direct 12 missiles to engage 6 targets simultaneously. So you think that there will be only 8-9 Harpoons lunched? And who will defend the rest of the fleet during attack on ADM destroyers?

If you choose to operate destroyers near shore why have you build them? They are not made for costal defenses... Why not use FAC instead?

Ps.
Why are everybody obsessed only with number of ships and range of missiles? They alone don’t worth a shit… What matters is training and tactical and strategic knowledge… Israelis in 1973 destroyed 11 Arab ships with Gabriel missile. Gabriel1 had only 20km range. Arab had Styx (range 45 - 80km)… Israelis used better tactic and win..

The s-300 you speak of is only the naval s-300F. The ground based s-300pmu/pmu2 is buided by the Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars. The Clam Shell can attack 6 targets, assigning TWO missles a target. And remeber, this is only one group of TELs(around 12, each with four missles). China can deploy far more if she wishes.

FACs do not have the air-defence ability of DDGs. DDG's such as the 52c and the 51c can provide valuable supplemetary air defence. Chians DDGs will most likely operate in taiwan strait. The range of the s-300 has them covered.

[isthvan]

The s-300 you speak of is only the naval s-300F. The ground based s-300pmu/pmu2 is buided by the Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars. The Clam Shell can attack 6 targets, assigning TWO missles a target. And remeber, this is only one group of TELs(around 12, each with four missles). China can deploy far more if she wishes.

FACs do not have the air-defence ability of DDGs. DDG's such as the 52c and the 51c can provide valuable supplemetary air defence. Chians DDGs will most likely operate in taiwan strait. The range of the s-300 has them covered.

Yes I was speaking of s-300 naval version because I have assumed that this thread is about Chinese navy and not about PLA’s air defenses… Ship systems and land base versions are not same because different environment in which they operate. I can not se how land based SAM could destroy anti ship missile or protect fleet from such attack… Yes it will help with air defenses but will also limit fleet operations (limited area of operation)… And everyone is focused on ship and air based Harpoons and totally forgetting about sub version… With PLAN limited ASW capabilities they are considerable treat to Chinese fleet…

[MIGleader]

Yes I was speaking of s-300 naval version because I have assumed that this thread is about Chinese navy and not about PLA’s air defenses… Ship systems and land base versions are not same because different environment in which they operate. I can not se how land based SAM could destroy anti ship missile or protect fleet from such attack… Yes it will help with air defenses but will also limit fleet operations (limited area of operation)… And everyone is focused on ship and air based Harpoons and totally forgetting about sub version… With PLAN limited ASW capabilities they are considerable treat to Chinese fleet…

chiense coastal radar is perfectly capable of watching and tracking enemy Anti-ship missles. As long as PLAB operations stay in thew taiwan strait, most of the PLAAFs and PLA's land rescources are availabel to assist them. also, in littoral waters such as the strait, chinese ASW is not as weak as it might be in deeper waters. The reason is SSKs can go out and hunt for U.s subs, assisted by ground based ka-28s.

[isthvan]

chiense coastal radar is perfectly capable of watching and tracking enemy Anti-ship missles. As long as PLAB operations stay in thew taiwan strait, most of the PLAAFs and PLA's land rescources are availabel to assist them. also, in littoral waters such as the strait, chinese ASW is not as weak as it might be in deeper waters. The reason is SSKs can go out and hunt for U.s subs, assisted by ground based ka-28s.

I don’t think so... First of all you need consider detection time of anti ship missile, which is not exactly 200km (more like 30 - 40km), distance from s-300 battery to fleet, number of Harpoons heeded toward fleet, reaction time of s-300 battery etc. Now count in jamming and multiple treats and you are getting my point…
Ships alone without AWACS-s have average detection range for ASMs of 14 – 17 km… Now with Harpoon that will give you 40 sec to destroy Harpoons… I definitely would not count on ground based SAM to do that for me…
As for SSK and Ka-28 against US subs I will put my money on US SSN… Do not forget that in your scenario other side has capable SAMs also, so I do not believe that to much Ka-27s would fly around long enough to threaten US sub …

[MIGleader]

To stay a safe distance away, U.s CSGs would most likely not be close enough to use their standards on ka-28s flying above the strait. In a near future situation, China definitly would deploy AWACs over the strait.

as for u.s subs, they cannot touch the ka-28. Once the u.s SSN is detected, the ka-28 can guide the kilos to the correct destination.

[bd popeye]

To stay a safe distance away, U.s CSGs would most likely not be close enough to use their standards on ka-28s flying above the strait. In a near future situation, China definitly would deploy AWACs over the strait.

as for u.s subs, they cannot touch the ka-28. Once the u.s SSN is detected, the ka-28 can guide the kilos to the correct destination.

Miggy...:confused: Are you discounting the US ablity to deploy ECM that will confound the whole situation for the PLA forces? And when did the PLAN ASW gain so much as to have the ablity to track a USN LA class SSN continusoly? Are you discounting the USN's ablity to conduct ASW with assest like a P-3, Arliegh Burke DDG's, FFG's and SH-60 variants?

Another way the US would attack PLAN surface vessels is with JDAM's and other precision air launched guided munitions.

Just how would the PLAN forces defend themselves against the USN assets?

Oh by the way..war sucks....

[Roger604]

Well obviously no one ship will be safe if all the adversary's assets are directed to it. But the PLAN destroyers won't be alone. There will be subs all over the Taiwan strait. Few things are deadlier to the USN than Yuan subs. JH-7A's with antiship missiles. AWACS and J-10/11's. Who knows what else?

With fighters, AWACS, ground based SAMS, and the destroyer's own air defense, it would be a very dangerous mission for a wing of F-18's to attack a PLAN destroyer with harpoons.

I also object to assuming that PLAN's tactics are not good enough to fully exploit the capabilities of its equipment. I also think PLAN has more than a few electronic warfare techniques up its sleeve to counter those the USN. I think it is widely acknowledged that information warfare is one area where the gap between China and the US is quite small.


According to this article, the USN would lose a conflict with PLAN if it sends only 3 CVBG's. (I'll translate it if I have time later.)

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/64/20060430/13289727.html

[Sea Dog]

According to this article, the USN would lose a conflict with PLAN if it sends only 3 CVBG's. (I'll translate it if I have time later.)

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/64/20060430/13289727.html

I wish you would translate it. There is absolutely no way that China's PLAN can defeat the USN. They just don't have the firepower or the experience. Plus I love the picture on the first page of that article showing PLAN ships firing ASM's in trail formation. That shows they don't have a very good grasp of maneuver warfare right there. They may as well just say, "sink us all"..."here we are guys". Sitting ducks.

Realistically, the USN could take care of PLAN with 2 carriers. Each carrier can deliver the equivalent to 900-1000 Tomahawks daily for 2 weeks straight with 24 hour sorties. That doesn't include other naval assets loaded for strike warfare (CG's, DDG's, SSN's, Ohio SSGN's, etc.). And it also doesn't include what the USAF can deliver, which is alot. Plus it doesn't take into account that the US can attack from the Yellow Sea, South China Sea, Philipine Sea, Sea of Japan, Just East of Taiwan, Central Asia, South Korea, Diego Garcia, and sortie heavy bombers from the US mainland. Roger, if you look at China's Order of battle, organizations, and force compositions......there is no way China has enough to stop this kind of onslaught.

[isthvan]

To stay a safe distance away, U.s CSGs would most likely not be close enough to use their standards on ka-28s flying above the strait. In a near future situation, China definitly would deploy AWACs over the strait.

as for u.s subs, they cannot touch the ka-28. Once the u.s SSN is detected, the ka-28 can guide the kilos to the correct destination.

I used subs as example of multiple launching platforms for Harpoon, to make a point of how difficult and almost impossible job would ground based S-300 have to do… Now you are also constantly referring on PMU2 version but you have tendency to forget that majority of Chinese S-300s are PMU and PMU1versions….
When I was talking about opposition’s capable air defenses I was referring to Taiwanese SAMs, destroyers and frigates… So I still do not believe that would be many Ka-27s flying around…
And for Kilo, Yuan, Song vs. US SSN part of scenario I would put my money on improved LA class every time…

[Nethappy]

Each carrier can deliver the equivalent to 900-1000 Tomahawks daily for 2 weeks straight with 24 hour sorties.

hmm, I never knew the USN carrier can launch Tomahawks and according to my knowledge non of the aircraft operation on the carrier can launch Tomahawks.
Only DDG and CG within the CVG can launch the tomahawks.

According to globalsecurity only the US only have about 2,000 BLOCK III and a possibley of up to a total buy of 2,200 missiles over a five-year cycle for the BLOCK 4. Nevertheless this exclude the one use in afgan and Iraq. So It really not possible for the USN CVG to deliver 1000 Tomahawks daily for 2 weeks straight with 24 hour sorties. Cost that would mean 14000 tomahawks and it more then the US Inventory.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bgm-109-inv.htm

Why is everyone comparing the PLAN with the USN. I was the one who use the Harpoon as a comparison. Nevetheless I was using the JMSDF.
I would believe is better to compare PLAN with other Asian navy rather then the USN. We all know the USN can beat everyone. Every comparsion betweenthe PLAN and the USN become a nightmare.

[bd popeye]

hmm, I never knew the USN carrier can launch Tomahawks and according to my knowledge non of the aircraft operation on the carrier can launch Tomahawks.
Only DDG and CG within the CVG can launch the tomahawks.

I'm pretty sure he meant JDAM's dropped fron Hornets.. Which the US has thousands of. Just how many Tomahawks the US has? I sure don't know.

Why so many JADAM's ?? They are cheap and work great in any weather.

[Nethappy]

I'm pretty sure he meant JDAM's dropped fron Hornets.. Which the US has thousands of. Just how many Tomahawks the US has? I sure don't know.

Why so many JADAM's ?? They are cheap and work great in any weather.

JDAM are great weapon. But they have the max range of 10-20 km.
Which much usless it a stealth fighter like the F-35 or F-22. Otherwise the Shipborne and Land based air defence going be hell alot of trouble.
Yeah the USN can drop a hell alot of bomb. But it still going to rely on Harpoon, tomahawk and sub to take down most NAVY.

[MIGleader]

I used subs as example of multiple launching platforms for Harpoon, to make a point of how difficult and almost impossible job would ground based S-300 have to do… Now you are also constantly referring on PMU2 version but you have tendency to forget that majority of Chinese S-300s are PMU and PMU1versions….
When I was talking about opposition’s capable air defenses I was referring to Taiwanese SAMs, destroyers and frigates… So I still do not believe that would be many Ka-27s flying around…
And for Kilo, Yuan, Song vs. US SSN part of scenario I would put my money on improved LA class every time…

Chinese su-30mkks carrying kh-31s have a SPECIFIC mission of SEAD on taiwanese SAM batteries. The Taiwanese navy has virtuslly no air defence besides is kidds, which shall be eliminated by submarines and a barrage of styx.

China has 12 batteries of pmu2, likely deployed around taiwan strait

Improved LA isnt that imposing. if it were sea wolf or virginia, the PLAB might have a problem. But remeber, ka-28s will first detect the sea wolf, then guide yuans/kilos to the ship. LA is quiet, but yuan and kilo are even quieter when under 5 knots. 1-2 LA will not stand against 6-8 kilo/yuan

[swimmerXC]

Improved LA isnt that imposing. if it were sea wolf or virginia, the PLAB might have a problem. But remeber, ka-28s will first detect the sea wolf, then guide yuans/kilos to the ship. LA is quiet, but yuan and kilo are even quieter when under 5 knots. 1-2 LA will not stand against 6-8 kilo/yuan

I wouldn't put too much faith into the Yuan/Kilo, especially in the hands of an un trained crew... how many years has the PLAN operated Yuan, 2-3 max. And the Kilo... let just say they messed up pretty bad by pratically destorying the batteries on it..

The USN has been using the LA for over 10 years... they are at sea constantly, what about the Yuan and Kilos? At max 1 month?

Oh about the Ka-28, the USN's got a huge CBG behind the LA, and they got plenty of ASW helos to track the Yuan/Kilo if they wanted too.

Another thing, how will the Ka-28 guide the Yuan/Kilo to the LA's... the Yuan/Kilo will have to surface or deploy a transmitter, and if it's above water, I'll bet the CBG will already see it.

I would bet my money on the USN anyday if it came down to LA's versus Yuan/Kilos

[bd popeye]

Nethappy sez...
JDAM are great weapon. But they have the max range of 10-20 km.
Which much usless it a stealth fighter like the F-35 or F-22. Otherwise the Shipborne and Land based air defence going be hell alot of trouble.
Yeah the USN can drop a hell alot of bomb. But it still going to rely on Harpoon, tomahawk and sub to take down most NAVY.


Range has little to do with it. When dropped from a high flying B-52 or Hornet with the cover of US ECM..well they just don't miss.

True that the USN would rely on it's precision guided weapons in any strike. JDAM included.

Miggy..Swimmerxc is right on the money. And you know he is a backer of the PLA forces....

One of the things he points out is training..Those USN LA class subs are always at sea. USN ships in general spend as more time at sea in a three month period as many other nations ships do in an entire year. The crews are trained and know what they are doing. That's a fact.

Plus..numbers..the USN has 21 LA class home ported in the Pacific. Plus the SSGN USS Ohio and one Seawolf class. Not to mention 8 SSBN's...

Improved LA isnt that imposing. if it were sea wolf or virginia, the PLAB might have a problem. But remeber, ka-28s will first detect the sea wolf, then guide yuans/kilos to the ship. LA is quiet, but yuan and kilo are even quieter when under 5 knots. 1-2 LA will not stand against 6-8 kilo/yuan

Not imposing??:confused: Miggy..did you know that all USN subs are now fitted with a new sonar suite that gives them, according to the US Navy, a single A-RCI Multi-Purpose Processor (MPP) that has as much computing power as the entire legacy Los Angeles Class (SSN-688/688I) submarine fleet combined???

I've posted this before in the sub thread but here I go again.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/lockheed-upgrades-us-submarine-acoustics-under-arci-program-updated/index.php

A-RCI is a sonar system upgrade installed on the USA's entire submarine fleet, including SSN-688 Los Angeles & SSN-688I Improved Los Angeles Class, SSN-21 Seawolf Class, SSN-744 Virginia Class, SSBN-726 Ohio Class nuclear missile boats, and the pending SSGN Tactical Trident special ops and strike subs.

By sharply upgrading ship sensor processing, it integrates and improves the boat's towed array, hull array and sphere array sonars, running more advanced algorithms and providing a fuller "picture" of the surrounding environment. Sometimes, it really is all about what you can do with it.

DID adds a bit more explanation of exactly what A-RCI entails and where its benefits were focused; then we'll go on to cover contracts placed under the A-RCI program in 2006.

The Acoustic - Rapid Commercial off-the-shelf Insertion (A-RCI) AN/BQQ-10(V) Sonar System was actually initiated as Engineering Change 1000 to the AN/BSY-1 Combat System on SSN-688I improved Los Angeles Class submarines. The concept doesn't replace the existing AN/BSY-1, AN/BQQ-5, and AN/BQQ-6 sensors - instead, it replaces central processors with modernized COTS personal computer technology and software installed in an open architecture. A-RCI efforts include interfaces to the legacy systems; signal processing enhancements; display enhancements; and incorporation of Government Furnished Information (GFI) algorithms.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, these improvements provide expanded capabilities, particularly in littoral waters, for covert intelligence collection and surveillance, and covert insertion and support of Special Forces. This is especially apropos for both the SSGN Tactical Trident special operations subs and the Virginia class, which also has special forces insertion capabilities. Expanded capabilities for anti-submarine warfare were focused on diesel-electric submarines, covert mining, and covert strike of targets ashore. Again, covery strile of targets ashore is also a prominent part of the SSGN and Virginia Class' missions.

Submarines with improved sensors, of course, like the new SSN-21 Seawolf and SSN-744 Virginia Class boats, will realize even greater benefits from having more computing power available in a more easily-upgradeable architecture.

According to the US Navy, a single A-RCI Multi-Purpose Processor (MPP) has as much computing power as the entire legacy Los Angeles Class (SSN-688/688I) submarine fleet combined, and allows the development and use of complex algorithms previously beyond the reach of legacy processors. Specific software improvements included passive ranging, spatial vernier processing, full spectrum processing, dual towed array concurrent processing, low frequency active interference rejection, passive broadband, passive narrowband and passive detection and tracking processing, track management, on-board training, and port/starboard ambiguity resolution.

A-RCI's open architecture confers other advantages as well, notably the capacity for faster, more economical, and more frequent hardware and/or software upgrades. The program expanded to provide improvements that could be back-fit into all nuclear attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines, totaling over 60 ship sets. The system is now known formally as the AN/BQQ-10 (V) Sonar, and has gone through four phases.

[isthvan]

Chinese su-30mkks carrying kh-31s have a SPECIFIC mission of SEAD on taiwanese SAM batteries. The Taiwanese navy has virtuslly no air defence besides is kidds, which shall be eliminated by submarines and a barrage of styx.

China has 12 batteries of pmu2, likely deployed around taiwan strait

Improved LA isnt that imposing. if it were sea wolf or virginia, the PLAB might have a problem. But remeber, ka-28s will first detect the sea wolf, then guide yuans/kilos to the ship. LA is quiet, but yuan and kilo are even quieter when under 5 knots. 1-2 LA will not stand against 6-8 kilo/yuan

Yes Chinese would conduct SEAD missions against Taiwanese air defenses, but I don’t think they would be completely destroyed… Taiwan also has FFG -7 frigates whit Standards, and better ASW systems then Chinese fleet…

Sorry for S-300 but jane´s states only PMU and PMU1 versions and Sinodefense states that China received four PMU and PMU1 regiments by 2004… I did not know that China received 12 batteries of pmu2 version…
But that’s not change my opinion about possible use of ground based SAMs for fleet defenses…

As for Yuan’s and Kilos I still believe that 2-3 improved LA SSN can take them out…
As swimmerXC and Popeye seed LA have better trained crews, better sonar’s and years of experience in playing games with Russian subs…

[MIGleader]

I wouldn't put too much faith into the Yuan/Kilo, especially in the hands of an un trained crew... how many years has the PLAN operated Yuan, 2-3 max. And the Kilo... let just say they messed up pretty bad by pratically destorying the batteries on it..

The USN has been using the LA for over 10 years... they are at sea constantly, what about the Yuan and Kilos? At max 1 month?

We dont know how much kilo crews train, so i wont make any statements on it yet. The battery incident happened when china first recieved her first kilos, about 10 years ago. I dont believe this kind of thing will be an issue again.



Oh about the Ka-28, the USN's got a huge CBG behind the LA, and they got plenty of ASW helos to track the Yuan/Kilo if they wanted too.

Another thing, how will the Ka-28 guide the Yuan/Kilo to the LA's... the Yuan/Kilo will have to surface or deploy a transmitter, and if it's above water, I'll bet the CBG will already see it.

Just as taiwanese SAMs can shoot down PLAN helos, chiense SAMs can shoot down u.s ASW helos. Absolutely essential for Chiense sucess is an incredible strong fighter umbrella. At least 50 flankers must be availabe, with 25 flying at a time over the straight. Two whole regiments, with possibly a third in reserve. This along with coastal SAMs will signifigantly reduce any threat from a CBG.

I would bet my money on the USN anyday if it came down to LA's versus Yuan/Kilos
I wouldnt, but thats just my opinion. Unlike skyhawk2005, i will accept the proffesional opinions of Popeye and istvan as truth, and debate this no longer. :china:

[Sea Dog]

hmm, I never knew the USN carrier can launch Tomahawks and according to my knowledge non of the aircraft operation on the carrier can launch Tomahawks.


Lol. Carriers can't launch em', nor can the aircraft they operate. You've got to re-read my statement. Here it is:

Each carrier can deliver the equivalent of 900-1000 Tomahawks daily for 2 weeks straight with 24 hour sorties.

You see. I said "THE EQUIVALENT". That means an amount that equals the same amount of firepower if you launched 900-1000 Tomahawks. That doesn't mean they launch them. ;)

And yes, the US will have around 4500-5000 Tomahawks total in their inventory. From what I understand they still have over 2,000 total of each block currently in inventory with TacTom's in production as we speak. I would estimate that there are between 450-700 out in active service in the Pacific Ocean as we speak. That would be plenty.

Edited to add: I just want to point out that PLAN does have good abilities. I'm not trying to minimize them. I just think that they're being grossly overestimated in their overall capabilities. This is why I think the USN/PLAN comparisons will reflect it. They are in their infancy in building a blue-water navy. As a matter of fact, they've barely begun. This type of stuff takes a long time to build. It ain't that easy. And they're not even close to being ready to confront a navy like USN. In time, their abilities will grow.

Those USN LA class subs are always at sea. USN ships in general spend as more time at sea in a three month period as many other nations ships do in an entire year. The crews are trained and know what they are doing. That's a fact.

Well said popeye. Most people tend to ignore the training and experience. Not to mention the sonar suite LA SSN's use.

[KYli]

SwimmerXC

I wouldn't put too much faith into the Yuan/Kilo, especially in the hands of an un trained crew... how many years has the PLAN operated Yuan, 2-3 max. And the Kilo... let just say they messed up pretty bad by pratically destorying the batteries on it..
Yuan would not be operational soon, so I agreed it is not much a threat now. But Kilo has been in the PLAN for over ten years, they did messed up big time when they first received it. But nowadays I would say Kilo will be a seriously threat to any other navy in the world, of course kilo still are inferior toward some of the modern subs.

Pope eye

Miggy..Swimmerxc is right on the money. And you know he is a backer of the PLA forces....
Swemmerxc is not the backer of PLA forces, but I am:) . I will strongly disagree with some of your opinions, let just say LA subs are not invisible. A quiet diesel subs are as much as a threat as a nuclear subs, eventhrough SSN could put in more tech on board. It does not necessary mean that diesel subs couldn't take out a far more powerful SSN subs.

isthvan

As for Yuan’s and Kilos I still believe that 2-3 improved LA SSN can take them out…
As swimmerXC and Popeye seed LA have better trained crews, better sonar’s and years of experience in playing games with Russian subs…

I would say otherwise, 2-3 improved LA ssn would be cake walk for chinese subs. China do have 20mings 12song 12kilos 2-3yuan, they are not going to sit around and let 2-3 LA ssn take them out one by one.

Migleader

I wouldnt, but thats just my opinion. Unlike skyhawk2005, i will accept the proffesional opinions of Popeye and istvan as truth, and debate this no longer.
Where are your spirit, buddy. Just because they were proffesional, does not mean they are always right. If this forum only consider the proffesional opinion as a facts, there would no need for us being here.:)


Most people tend to ignore the training and experience. Not to mention the sonar suite LA SSN's use.

But the problem is we don't know how much training chinese subs conduct, so the arguement is void. US do have more experience of course.

[Roger604]

Here is a relevant excerpt from the article I linked to earlier.

另一方面，最近几次的美军模拟演习结果都让美方感到非常不安。在一次演习中，美军原计划用Ｆ—22和“联合 攻击”战斗机等最先进的隐形战机夜袭解放军机场和导弹阵地，派航母战斗群打击中国大陆沿海目标，美国陆军在 五天之内将一个师的兵力运上前线，海军陆战队搭乘可以垂直起降的Ｖ—22旋翼飞机深入敌后。但在演习的过程 中，美军三艘航空母舰在解放军反舰导弹的威胁下，不得不远离海岸线，舰上全部250架战机毫无用武之地。美 军能用得上的只有Ｂ—2隐形轰炸机和巡航导弹，但它们对于战争的胜负难以起到决定性作用。

　　按照惯例，美军的台海危机模拟演习由美太平洋司令部作战模拟中心或者国防大学完成。在演习前，美军一方 面利用间谍卫星、侦察机、间谍船搜集中国大陆军队在台湾海峡附近的通讯信号、战机转场情况、导弹阵地的具体 位置；另一方面，要求台湾地区军情部门提供大陆军队的具体人数、武器参数及假目标的位置。

　　有消息说，在历次演习中，美军有两大担心。一是担心台军士气，另一个担心是盟国在战时的态度。美军认为 ，战时韩国和日本很难冒着卷入战争的危险向美军开放空军基地或军港。如果盟国不支持，美军的补给线将完全暴 露在解放军潜艇部队的火力下。


The latest simulation conducted by the American National Defense University made the American brass very uneasy. In one simulation, the American side intended to use the F-22 and the JSF to attack the airfields and missile bases of the PLAAF under cover of night, and then launch fighters from carriers to attack targets along the coastline. And then, within 5 days, they intended to bring a battalion (?? not sure about this) of ground troops to the front lines so marines can be dropped deep behind enemy lines.

But in the course of the simulation, 3 carriers could not get close to the mainland because they were threatened by antiship missiles. All 250 fighters on board were useless. The American side could only use B-2's and cruise missiles, but their payload was not sufficient to achieve objectives.

The American side is also worried that, in a conflict, Taiwan, S. Korean and Japan would not be willing to let them attack from their bases. So the supply line would be long and vulnerable to attack from PLAN subs.

[Schumacher]

Here is a relevant excerpt from the article I linked to earlier.

另一方面，最近几次的美军模拟演习结果都让美方感到非常不安。在一次演习中，美军原计划用Ｆ—22和“联合 攻击”战斗机等最先进的隐形战机夜袭解放军机场和导弹阵地，派航母战斗群打击中国大陆沿海目标，美国陆军在 五天之内将一个师的兵力运上前线，海军陆战队搭乘可以垂直起降的Ｖ—22旋翼飞机深入敌后。但在演习的过程 中，美军三艘航空母舰在解放军反舰导弹的威胁下，不得不远离海岸线，舰上全部250架战机毫无用武之地。美 军能用得上的只有Ｂ—2隐形轰炸机和巡航导弹，但它们对于战争的胜负难以起到决定性作用。

　　按照惯例，美军的台海危机模拟演习由美太平洋司令部作战模拟中心或者国防大学完成。在演习前，美军一方 面利用间谍卫星、侦察机、间谍船搜集中国大陆军队在台湾海峡附近的通讯信号、战机转场情况、导弹阵地的具体 位置；另一方面，要求台湾地区军情部门提供大陆军队的具体人数、武器参数及假目标的位置。

　　有消息说，在历次演习中，美军有两大担心。一是担心台军士气，另一个担心是盟国在战时的态度。美军认为 ，战时韩国和日本很难冒着卷入战争的危险向美军开放空军基地或军港。如果盟国不支持，美军的补给线将完全暴 露在解放军潜艇部队的火力下。


The latest simulation conducted by the American National Defense University made the American brass very uneasy. In one simulation, the American side intended to use the F-22 and the JSF to attack the airfields and missile bases of the PLAAF under cover of night, and then launch fighters from carriers to attack targets along the coastline. And then, within 5 days, they intended to bring a battalion (?? not sure about this) of ground troops to the front lines so marines can be dropped deep behind enemy lines.

But in the course of the simulation, 3 carriers could not get close to the mainland because they were threatened by antiship missiles. All 250 fighters on board were useless. The American side could only use B-2's and cruise missiles, but their payload was not sufficient to achieve objectives.

The American side is also worried that, in a conflict, Taiwan, S. Korean and Japan would not be willing to let them attack from their bases. So the supply line would be long and vulnerable to attack from PLAN subs.

Access to bases in Taiwan, SK, Jpn will be key. I don't think Taiwan & SK will let US use, not sure abt Jpn.
Does lack of bases mean F-22 will have to fly from Guam ?
I see they also use JSF in the simulation, so it's for a scenario at least 5 yrs from now ?
Not surprisingly, the conclusion is that US will have to rely heavily on B-2 & cruise missiles initially at least.
How effective will B-2 be without F-22 escorts ? Will there be radar & SAM systems in abt 5 yrs that reduce the effectiveness of B-2 & cruise missiles.

[Roger604]

According to the discussion in another thread on this forum, China now has anti-stealth radars. They are apparently based on the Czech "Vera" radar. Of course, the B-2's flight characteristics make it very vulnerable if it is discovered.

[Totoro]

1. Can someone provide concrete info on PLAN crews days in training per month/year? Until that is provided, there is no need to belittle PLAN's crews and make them seem like incompetent idiots who can't use their equipment right. Like it was said, kilos were not bought yesterday.

2. Chinese current sub fleet would have very little chance attacking US force thats some 700-1000 km away from chinese shore. They are just way too slow (if quiet) or lack the endurance (if fast) for any kind of true offensive action. They DO worth quite a bit to china, though as they're very good defensive weapons. Difference between such sub fleet or no sub fleet would probably be days/weeks of postponed US action as it meticulously searches the waters around its ships as it slowly approaches china's coast. When used close enough to shore so PLAAF can provide cover and make it harder for USN to use its airborne asw assets - those little subs will be quite a pain in the ass for the US. And if US decides there's no time to lose and that as much forces as possible must go as close to shore as possible to attack certain targets - then even some major sinkings may happen. While the subs arent decisive weapons, if used correctly they can vastly narrow down the strategic choices for the US forces.

2. Official info on s300 does not exist. Unofficially, based on Almaz company news it seems 4 batteries of pmu and 12 batteries of pmu1 were delivered to china with a contract for 8 batteries of pmu2 being either in the works or being signed. So, yes, that would mean no pmu2 battery is operational as of today, even if some did get very recently delivered to china.

3. Taiwan will allow US planes in its airbases if it is already attacked by China. That may or may not be too late already. No other country with the sole exception of japan will want to risk giving aid to US. Perhaps India might allow overflights over its territory but even that's doubtful. Japan, on the other hand, might even allow its bases to be used. Hard to tell, really.

4. To be on topic, finally. For PLAN to be supreme in the pacific with current models of ships and current tech - it would need ridiculously vast numbers of ships. There is no way china will ever go on a spending spree that'd allow for that, which would bankrupt the country. And that's not to allow any other country to increase its force size. In my opinion, there is no need for china (or any other country for that matter) to be supreme in the pacific anyway. It is a waste of money and a dangerous foreign policy. No one likes imperialist attitude. I really hope PLAN will stick to varyag as training carrier, maybe build another training one in 10 years of its own design (for engineering experience) and not go on a suicidal spending spree making multiple carrier groups that'd be more of a liability than anything else. What PLAN is doing today seems very smart and cost effective and in accordance to chinese needs.

[isthvan]

isthvan

I would say otherwise, 2-3 improved LA ssn would be cake walk for chinese subs. China do have 20mings 12song 12kilos 2-3yuan, they are not going to sit around and let 2-3 LA ssn take them out one by one.

You misunderstood my point… I did not say that 2-3 improved LA SSN’s could take out entire Chinese sub fleet… That would be plain ignorant and stupid thing for me to say… What I was trying to say is that 2-3 LA’s could penetrate Chinese sub defenses, launch Harpoon’s, and get out…

I have based my assumptions on fact that China would tray to stop US SSNs with modern subs like Yuan’s and Kilo’s (since Ming’s are totally obsolete (and probably are bigger threat to there crews then to any opponents) and Song’s are total disappointment ore else they would not replacing them whit new type only few years after they got operational status)…

Since number of Kilos and Yuan’s is limited and they can’t be all on same place at one time, and since LA’s have better sonar’s, better and more experienced crews and years of experience in tracking Russian subs they have clear advantage over Chinese sub fleet…

Now considering that and assumption that probable engagement would not be 2-3 LA’s vs 14 Kilo’s/ Yuan’s but more like 1 LA vs 1-3 Kilo’s/ Yuan’s in engagement area I still stand behind what I wrote…
Also I have assumed that LA’s only have to get to some 150km from fleet to fire Harpoon’s, and by so they still have cover from US and Taiwanese ASW assets…

Now since this “my subs are better then yours” talk started when I said that Chinese fleet air defenses have to consider sub lunched Harpoons and Migleader said that Kilos would take care of US subs I would like to say that I like everybody else are just stating my opinion but only about that limited part of scenario and nothing else…

Since this is thread about PLAN I would like to suggest that we drop this US vs PLAN talk and return to topic…

[bd popeye]

Swemmerxc is not the backer of PLA forces, but I am . I will strongly disagree with some of your opinions, let just say LA subs are not invisible. A quiet diesel subs are as much as a threat as a nuclear subs, eventhrough SSN could put in more tech on board. It does not necessary mean that diesel subs couldn't take out a far more powerful SSN subs

Nope LA class subs are not invinsible. I never said they were. Desiel subs are hard to track. I never said they could not take out a nuke boat. As I have pointed out in many of my previous post from months ago.

The USN has been training ith the Swedish sub HMS Gotland in the Pacific around San Diego for about 9 months. And accoring to an article published a few months ago has sucsessfully tracked that sub. The article was posted in this forum by Seadog.

What sort of "magic bullet" does the PLAN have reguading "ASW" against any US sub? All I've ever read in this forum is that the ASW capablity of the PLAN lags behind many nations. I even stated myself that if I were the CNO of the PLAN that improving ASW would be my number one priorty.

My opinions are based on my 20 years of experience while serving on active duty in the USN. Also my discussions with my son who is an active duty sonar tech with 8 years experience. He is an instructor of advanced surface sonar technology at the ASW base in San Diego. And my discussions with several defense technical professionals that I have know ..some for more than 20 years.

Oh by the way...war sucks....

[KYli]

You misunderstood my point… I did not say that 2-3 improved LA SSN’s could take out entire Chinese sub fleet… That would be plain ignorant and stupid thing for me to say… What I was trying to say is that 2-3 LA’s could penetrate Chinese sub defenses, launch Harpoon’s, and get out…

I have based my assumptions on fact that China would tray to stop US SSNs with modern subs like Yuan’s and Kilo’s (since Ming’s are totally obsolete (and probably are bigger threat to there crews then to any opponents) and Song’s are total disappointment ore else they would not replacing them whit new type only few years after they got operational status)…

Since number of Kilos and Yuan’s is limited and they can’t be all on same place at one time, and since LA’s have better sonar’s, better and more experienced crews and years of experience in tracking Russian subs they have clear advantage over Chinese sub fleet…

Now considering that and assumption that probable engagement would not be 2-3 LA’s vs 14 Kilo’s/ Yuan’s but more like 1 LA vs 1-3 Kilo’s/ Yuan’s in engagement area I still stand behind what I wrote…
Also I have assumed that LA’s only have to get to some 150km from fleet to fire Harpoon’s, and by so they still have cover from US and Taiwanese ASW assets…

Now since this “my subs are better then yours” talk started when I said that Chinese fleet air defenses have to consider sub lunched Harpoons and Migleader said that Kilos would take care of US subs I would like to say that I like everybody else are just stating my opinion but only about that limited part of scenario and nothing else…

Since this is thread about PLAN I would like to suggest that we drop this US vs PLAN talk and return to topic…
The biggest fault in your assumptions will be that China would be on the defensive, so there are no need for them to go too far out of sea. It would be up to US to penetrate the Chinese subs defenses, as an offensive force US need to make the decision rather or not they should attack Chinese subs with limited resources or wait until they gather enough subs to launch an full out assault. There are only one aircraft carrier in the Japan right now, yes they could always get some reenforcement from Guam. But it would not be enough for them, consider that the second and third aircraft carriers will be a week or two away, let along the others will probably take months.

I think it would be rather risky for 2-3 LA SSN to penetrate Chinese defenses and launch Harpoon and get out, it would be unwise to chart into unfriendly territories with many unknown enemies waiting to strike at you. Yeah, US would probably have many sucess attempts, and quick capable of destroy many Chinese subs and warhips. But even if China manage to take out a few of LA SSn, it would come as a big blown to US. US just can't afford to lose subs in this early days of conflict, it would be a psychiatric blow to soilders moral. And if SSN conduct mission too far away from ASW protection, it would be quick dangerous. I knew that you said that SSN could be operate at 150KM from the fleet, but do you think that is always possible. Chinese subs would also operate under the protection of Chinese warships and cruise missiles at land. You might have forget Chinese are quick capable to hit things over 300km away, as long as Chinese subs don't go out of reach. And I do think that China would make the subs stay and hidden in some location and wait for the enemies, rather risk the Subs to attack US' SSN. They knew their enemies are more capable, so it would be stupid for them to do the offensive.

I agreed that we should stay on topic, it would be pointless for us to do debate like this. We don't need any more"my subs is better than you" debate, but I would make it clearly that US' LA SSNs are better than Chinese Yuans and Kilos. Just that I don't agree that Yuan and Kilos could be easily take care of. If Yuan and Kilos are use wisely, it would be as much as a threat to US than US'SSN to the Chinese.


What sort of "magic bullet" does the PLAN have reguading "ASW" against any US sub? All I've ever read in this forum is that the ASW capablity of the PLAN lags behind many nations. I even stated myself that if I were the CNO of the PLAN that improving ASW would be my number one priorty.

My opinions are based on my 20 years of experience while serving on active duty in the USN. Also my discussions with my son who is an active duty sonar tech with 8 years experience. He is an instructor of advanced surface sonar technology at the ASW base in San Diego. And my discussions with several defense technical professionals that I have know ..some for more than 20 years.

Oh by the way...war sucks....
Hi Popeye

I had read the report about USN able to track diesel Subs, and I do believe that USN are quick capable to do so. But we can't take the reports as a facts, we just don't know enough to say that USN could track every kind of diesel subs in Chinese Navy. It would take a War to find out who is better and what is capable of, but do we really want a War. Maybe we should let US navy and Chinese navy conduct a full scale exercise to find out some of our answers(like it would be happen in a million years), but in the meantime it would be anyone guess.

I agreed that Chinese ASW are weak, and there are nothing China could do except using Subs against Subs for this scenario. Which bring back the same question, can a diesel subs defeated a SSNs. There are no arguement that USN ssn are way better than Yuan or Kilo, but could we make the assumptions that the outcome would be so one side. As much as we knew War was never really predictable, and surely China is powerful enough to make any outcome of war with US unknown.

I am not here to question your experience and knowledge, but I would want to point out that China couldn't underestimate also. We don't know how much progress Chinese had made in this few years both in training and weapon develpment, of course China is still far behind US. But I will question how capable of US able to track diesel, as much as how capable Chinese Navy is.

[bd popeye]

I agreed that we should stay on topic, it would be pointless for us to do debate like this. We don't need any more"my subs is better than you" .

With that statement I can agree. You seem to be a very intelligent well spoken person. Outstanding.:) I hate to agrue with anyone. I look foward to future calm, intelligent postings from you.

Outstanding discussion!

And war still sucks.

let peace reign....

[Nethappy]

Ok this is not aimed at any county.
But last time I check the PLAN SSK can launch SSM too.
Kilo - Novator 3M-54E - 220km
Yaun - YJ-8X - 120 km.

And war still sucks. let peace reign....
Popeye I agree with u there.

This topic should chance it title, to something like
HOW CAN PLAN BE IMPROVED?
HOW CAN IT DEFEND ITSELF?
HOW CAN PLAN BE ASIA BEST?
HAHA

[Finn McCool]

Well, I think we have learned something about the original topic from this off-topic extravaganza. The PLAN needs better ASW, as well as better below surface offensive capability. I talked to a guy who flew p-3 Orions out of Subic Bay in the Phillipines. He said that the PLANs subs were easy to track, didn't get out of port too much and knew they were vunerable, so they didn't usually leave costal waters. He was much more concerened about Soviet subs out of Camn Ranh Bay in Vietnam. He left field duty a while ago, but allowing for the improved capability of both sides, it is still generally true.

I would also like to point out that the USNs subs were able to repeatedly penetrate Soviet "safe zones", such as the White sea, the Sea of Okthosk, the Gulf of Finland and the Black Sea. They were even able to get to the entrances of Soviet bases such as Murmansk, Vladivostok, the Kronsdat (I think that's what its called), and others. The Soviets had ASW capabilites that were superioir to what the PLAN has now, and USN subs were still able to get into the most heavily guarded areas the Soviet Navy had to conduct clandestine operations, such as tapping the underwater telephone cable from Petropavlosk to Vladivostok and releasing divers into the headquarters of the Soviet Navy's European Fleet at Murmansk. Sure, the Soviets did some of the same things to the Americans, but no one ever said a PLAN sub wasn't gonna get an Anerican ship or two if that dreaded war ever breaks out. Does the PLAN have anything to compare to this sort of experience? Moreover, we can see that the USNs subs defeated an enemy more prepared than the PLAN is now 20 YEARS AGO. The US might lose a sub or two, but they would definately be able to penetrate PLAN defences and launch cruise missles.

[isthvan]

Kyli

Like I said I was talking only about one limited scenario… I agree with a lot of things that you said and since we agree that there are too many variables to be considered in every scenario further debate would be really pointless…

As Popeye said war sucks…

Best Regards,
Isthvan

[Nethappy]

He left field duty a while ago, but allowing for the improved capability of both sides, it is still generally true.

A while ago how long was that.

Anyway, why do we want a war between the CHINA and the US anyway in the frist place. It not going to be like the Soviets vrs West.

It really going have a huge impact to the world economic. The outcome is going to be to big bear even for the US. It just not worth it.

The US economic is already in bad shape and the CHINA govt. have a sercet weapon, it call curreny dumping. Joking!!!!! :off

[bd popeye]

Nethappy..nice avatar!!! Awesome...

Nethappy sez..
Well, I think we have learned something about the original topic from this off-topic extravaganza. The PLAN needs better ASW, as well as better below surface offensive capability. I talked to a guy who flew p-3 Orions out of Subic Bay(NAS Cubi Pt) in the Phillipines. He said that the PLAN subs were easy to track, didn't get out of port too much and knew they were vunerable, so they didn't usually leave costal waters. He was much more concerened about Soviet subs out of Camn Ranh Bay in Vietnam. He left field duty a while ago, but allowing for the improved capability of both sides, it is still generally true.


Well:o the base in the Subic/Cubi complex has been closed since Nov '92..nevertheless that info still holds true. I know a more recently retired US P-3/SH-60 AW operator who has echoed the same senitments.

Personally until someone here post some different info or I find it on the web I think the PLAN sorely lacks in training. Enough said.

The PLAN needs to take the ships to sea and operate them. That's how they will learn to best use them for their intended purpose.

[MIGleader]

A while ago how long was that.
The US economic is already in bad shape and the CHINA govt. have a sercet weapon, it call curreny dumping. Joking!!!!! :off

Sampanviking made that joke a while ago.:D

Song’s are total disappointment ore else they would not replacing them whit new type only few years after they got operational

The song is certainly not a dissapointment. The PLAN first started operating Songs in 1999, 7 years ago. The PLAN is merely replacing the song with a more capable yuan.

What I was trying to say is that 2-3 LA’s could penetrate Chinese sub defenses, launch Harpoon’s, and get out…
Which they are not capable of doing. In a time of conflict, the PLAN would concentarte all of its rescouces in to the taiwan strait area. Im sure they would be expecting U.s SSNs.

War is clearly not going to break out tommorow. Chinas "improvement" curve moves faster than the u.s's. Its not likely that the u.s navy of 2008 will be able to fight the chinese signifigantly better than the the u.s navy of today.
The rest of the concept is difficult to explain, so i wont.

Popeye, if the chinese did have a magic weapon of ASW, we certainly would not know about it until real conflict.

anyhow, lets all quit bashing opinions. none of us know a singifigant amount to keep this disscussion "intellegent", becasue this is one of the vaguest areas of the PLAN.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I wish you would translate it. There is absolutely no way that China's PLAN can defeat the USN. They just don't have the firepower or the experience. Plus I love the picture on the first page of that article showing PLAN ships firing ASM's in trail formation. That shows they don't have a very good grasp of maneuver warfare right there. They may as well just say, "sink us all"..."here we are guys". Sitting ducks.

Realistically, the USN could take care of PLAN with 2 carriers. Each carrier can deliver the equivalent to 900-1000 Tomahawks daily for 2 weeks straight with 24 hour sorties. That doesn't include other naval assets loaded for strike warfare (CG's, DDG's, SSN's, Ohio SSGN's, etc.). And it also doesn't include what the USAF can deliver, which is alot. Plus it doesn't take into account that the US can attack from the Yellow Sea, South China Sea, Philipine Sea, Sea of Japan, Just East of Taiwan, Central Asia, South Korea, Diego Garcia, and sortie heavy bombers from the US mainland. Roger, if you look at China's Order of battle, organizations, and force compositions......there is no way China has enough to stop this kind of onslaught.

Those ships are shooting off missiles for propaganda/show-of force reasons. They are not engaged in a real military exercise. And how is the USN defeating China with just two carriers if USN destroyers/cruisers/frigates, the entire US sub fleet, and the entire USAF are pitching in? Hells yea the US could reduce the PLAN to nothingness if ALL US resources are utilized, which of course they would be in case of a real war.

[Roger604]

Well:o the base in the Subic/Cubi complex has been closed since Nov '92..nevertheless that info still holds true. I know a more recently retired US P-3/SH-60 AW operator who has echoed the same senitments.

But this person wasn't referring to the diesel subs, was he? No doubt Han class is way obsolete. I think you mentioned before the Yuan, Song and Kilo class subs are a HUGE headache for the USN because their just tooooo quiet.

No doubt the USN is trying to figure out ways to counter diesel subs, but from what I read, a Yuan/Kilo/Song that dives deep and lies in ambush is just about impossible to find for current technologies. Even harder if you're in a rush and trying to barge in.

I recall there were a few times where Chinese subs would suddenly pop up close to Japan and say hello. So, there's undoubtly a lot of PLAN sub activity going completely unnoticed by regional militaries and the USN.

A lot of sources also agree that the cramped quarters of the Taiwan strait and the sheer number of Chinese diesel subs greatly advantage the defending side (which can use ambush techniques).

[Sea Dog]

Those ships are shooting off missiles for propaganda/show-of force reasons.

What a horrid waste of resources and time at sea. Either that or they just don't have a good grasp of a maneuvering sea conflict. hmmm.


And how is the USN defeating China with just two carriers if USN destroyers/cruisers/frigates, the entire US sub fleet, and the entire USAF are pitching in? Hells yea the US could reduce the PLAN to nothingness if ALL US resources are utilized, which of course they would be in case of a real war.

2 CVBG's conducting strikes would be very difficult for anybody to deal with. The PLAN simply doesn't have the resources or the logistical capabilities to deal with it. And their basing situation is not very ideal for anything other than ops in the Taiwan Straits region. And you can imagine the amount of weaponry that would be focused on this area.


No doubt the USN is trying to figure out ways to counter diesel subs, but from what I read, a Yuan/Kilo/Song that dives deep and lies in ambush is just about impossible to find for current technologies. Even harder if you're in a rush and trying to barge in.

Diesel subs are only quiet at low speeds on batteries. Above certain speeds they are more easily detectable, and deplete their batteries much quicker. That's why they are of little use to the scenario you're describing. Heck, even the Soviet Union understood they couldn't interdict carriers or control areas such as the GIUK gap with diesels. I don't know why China thinks they can. The Soviets understood they were of limited utility in this type of warfare. And they were right. It just won't happen. The CVBG would have to go right on top of a diesel for any luck. And even then, Diesels just don't have the firepower to do much damage against a CVBG, nor do they have the endurance to escape.

Don't get me wrong. Songs, Yuans, and Kilos are all deadly platforms. They can all do tremendous damage. But in this type of warfare, they are certainly not decisive and are unable to maintain any kind of sea control.


A lot of sources also agree that the cramped quarters of the Taiwan strait and the sheer number of Chinese diesel subs greatly advantage the defending side (which can use ambush techniques).

I wouldn't exactly expect USN surface and sub-surface forces to go into this region until PLAN forward bases are dealt with, and enough PLAN vessels are permanent reefs. Just streaming in there on day 1 would be....well....bad sea control strategy.

[MIGleader]

What a horrid waste of resources and time at sea. Either that or they just don't have a good grasp of a maneuvering sea conflict. hmmm.
The PLAN holds many excercieses a year, most of which it does not air on media. An excerciese showing this is probably jsut for the cameramen. Just like how pilots would not ever pull a cobra in real combat. The PLAN has existed since the 50's, is its unlikly they are deficient in manuvering.


2 CVBG's conducting strikes would be very difficult for anybody to deal with. The PLAN simply doesn't have the resources or the logistical capabilities to deal with it. And their basing situation is not very ideal for anything other than ops in the Taiwan Straits region. And you can imagine the amount of weaponry that would be focused on this area.

I would like you to prove that claim, espcially since we know so little about PLAN rescuorces and logistics. im assuming we ARE talking about taiwan here, not japan or SEA.


Diesel subs are only quiet at low speeds on batteries. Above certain speeds they are more easily detectable, and deplete their batteries much quicker. That's why they are of little use to the scenario you're describing. Heck, even the Soviet Union understood they couldn't interdict carriers or control areas such as the GIUK gap with diesels. I don't know why China thinks they can. The Soviets understood they were of limited utility in this type of warfare. And they were right. It just won't happen. The CVBG would have to go right on top of a diesel for any luck. And even then, Diesels just don't have the firepower to do much damage against a CVBG, nor do they have the endurance to escape.

The top naval commnders and tacticianers of the PLAN are definitely wiser in naval matters than any of us, so it is very ignorant to say these things based on a some internet facts and pictures. Since China is on the defence from the u.s, it may set up its SSKs strategically and wait for the u.s cvbg. No need to move more than 5 knots in this scenario. Even one torpedo hit on a carrier, listing it, will make it unable to handle aircraft.

Don't get me wrong. Songs, Yuans, and Kilos are all deadly platforms. They can all do tremendous damage. But in this type of warfare, they are certainly not decisive and are unable to maintain any kind of sea control.

You are correct, although defence of the region is hardly sea control.

I wouldn't exactly expect USN surface and sub-surface forces to go into this region until PLAN forward bases are dealt with, and enough PLAN vessels are permanent reefs. Just streaming in there on day 1 would be....well....bad sea control strategy.

Its not going to easy nor fast for the U.s to deal with all PLAN forward bases, so waiting may lose valauble time.

[Sea Dog]

I'll only say this. Isn't it a wonder why the Soviet Union felt the need to develop a number of heavy SSGN's, and a number of SSN's? And they still did not have sea control assured in these critical areas. Gee I wonder why they invested all those rubles into SSGN's and other things which were totally unecessary. To think, all they needed was 60 antiquated diesel subs, and a few modern ones, with vulnerable logistics and a pretty vulnerable basing situation. ;)

I only wonder if PLAN leadership really is this foolish.:)

[Roger604]

The reason why they built all those submarines is so they can pop up next to Delaware and say "hello" to the Americans!

I doubt the US had an edge on the Soviets during the Cold War as far as submarines go. Both sides could penetrate each other's defenses. I wonder what sort of stories a Russian submariner could tell.

According to globalsecurity.org, during the late Cold War, the Soviet Union had 8 SSNs and 29 SSKs (counting only those of recent vintage, after 1970). Today, China has about 26 SSK's (counting only Song and better). This is a much higher density of defensive submarines because the Soviet Union had a bunch of different bases to patrol (Pacific, Black Sea, North Sea, etc.).

If all those 26 SSKs were hanging around the Taiwan straits area. They could be just as dangerous to American SSNs as the SSNs are to them (like KYLi says).

[bd popeye]

The reason why they built all those submarines is so they can pop up next to Delaware and say "hello" to the Americans!

I doubt the US had an edge on the Soviets during the Cold War as far as submarines go. Both sides could penetrate each other's defenses. I wonder what sort of stories a Russian submariner could tell.

(pop up next to Deleware)..Uhhh They didn't did they? Not to my knowledge. Most of those poor Russian nuke sub sailors can't tell any tales because they are dead. But I'm sure they could tell some stories. The average life span of a Russian nuke sub sailor was 7 years after he left his sub. That was common knowledge in some circles of the USN from training we recieved about the Soivet Navy. Those Soivet nuke boats leaked radiation very severly.

The main advantage the US had during the Cold war was training. The Soivets did not spend half the time at sea as the USN.

Last time I checked the Russian Navy is a mere shell of itself. And the USN?..Well they... enough said.

I'm glad there never was ever a war between the USA and USSR. Because war sucks!

[Sea Dog]

(pop up next to Deleware)..Uhhh They didn't did they? Not to my knowledge. Most of those poor Russian nuke sub sailors can't tell any tales because they are dead. But I'm sure they could tell some stories. The average life span of a Russian nuke sub sailor was 7 years after he left his sub. That was common knowledge in some circles of the USN from training we recieved about the Soivet Navy. Those Soivet nuke boats leaked radiation very severly.

The main advantage the US had during the Cold war was training. The Soivets did not spend half the time at sea as the USN.

Last time I checked the Russian Navy is a mere shell of itself. And the USN?..Well they... enough said.


Popeye, you are so right sir. The USN always maintained a training and experience edge over the Soviets. And it paid off. The Soviets never achieved parity in submarine quality despite their best efforts and the Walker espionage event.

Actually the Soviets had a better basing strategy than China currently has. And the Soviets knew they could not compete for any type of sea control strategy without the heavy SSGN's. And that was based on much older Aegis mods and surveillance capabilities. The point is, the USN is probably 10 times better than the Cold War USN. China hasn't even achieved what the Soviets had back then.

[Roger604]

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

Yes, it's too bad the Soviets had such a harsh doctrine toward submarines. They were expected to die for the Motherland. But doesn't that mean they were even more determined, even more gutsy than their American counterparts?

And I'd really like to know if USN had ever had to deal with as many attack subs in one area as China can field in the Taiwan straits. The numbers from globalsecurity.org shows that the late Cold War Soviet Union had 37 attack subs, combining all their different fleets. But China has 26 attack subs, and a much smaller area to defend.

Finally, I don't see how an SSGN helps to maintain sea control. They don't carry torpedos. One thing that the Soviets didn't have during the Cold War was those super-cavitating rocket torpedos. China bought some in the mid-90's. I'm not sure if they're deployed on the Chinese subs now or not.

[IDonT]

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

Yes, it's too bad the Soviets had such a harsh doctrine toward submarines. They were expected to die for the Motherland. But doesn't that mean they were even more determined, even more gutsy than their American counterparts?

And I'd really like to know if USN had ever had to deal with as many attack subs in one area as China can field in the Taiwan straits. The numbers from globalsecurity.org shows that the late Cold War Soviet Union had 37 attack subs, combining all their different fleets. But China has 26 attack subs, and a much smaller area to defend.

Finally, I don't see how an SSGN helps to maintain sea control. They don't carry torpedos. One thing that the Soviets didn't have during the Cold War was those super-cavitating rocket torpedos. China bought some in the mid-90's. I'm not sure if they're deployed on the Chinese subs now or not.

1.) On technical terms, Soviet subs were alot noisier than their U.S. counter parts. Part of this reason was that the Soviets did not believe that quieting technology was essential. They focused on higher speed and depth. It was only after an American spy told them the US has consistently track each of their submarines did they start focusing on quieting technologies on their subs. The Victor III was the product of this. Unfortunately for them, the US lead was insurmountable. The most advanced Akula II subs are not even on par with the LA class subs in terms quieting technology and sonar suite.

2.) US has dealth with Nazi wolf packs in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Nazi submarine force had the highest casualty rate in any branch of service in WWII, for a good reason.

3.) The problem with concentrating that many subs in a small area is friendly fire. If a Kilo has detected another sub in the straights, their is a very good chance that it might be friendly. That is why Subs almost always work alone. USN subs attached to carrier groups operate hundreds of miles from the carrier.

4.) The Ohio SSGN's carry torpedoes. Its main job is a very high survivable strike platform. Now for sea control, the best SSGN is the OSCAR II. Those things carry 24 SS-n-19 Shipwreck missiles, each witha 500 mile range. The Soviets used it in conjunction with Backfire strikes on US carrier battle groups.

[Sea Dog]

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

It's widely known that USN submarines had clear acoustical advantages during the cold war. Soviet boats were being tracked by USN boats undetected