Weakness of the PLAN

[IDonT]

Here are the current weakness of the PLAN:

1.) Lack of maritime surveillance aircraft/systems.
2.) Lack of true fleet-air defence against both aircraft and sea skimming missiles
3.) Lack of credible ASW assets.

How to remedy:

1.) Buy Bear maritime reconnaisance and more AEW aircraft in the short-term. Developed on systems in the longterm. Drill and practice detecting and locating highly mobile naval battle groups while ensuring reconnaisance asset survivability.

2.) Build more 052C in the short term, develop indeginous SAM systems that can intercept sea skimming missiles. Conduct live fire exercises with multiple target drones that emulate the flight profile of a modern anti-ship missile.

3.) Build more ASW frigates, Airborne ASW planes, and more subs. Develop or acquire up to date sonar systems. Conduct exercises on how to prosecute modern SSN subs.

[bd popeye]

In addition to what you have already posted the weakness of the PLAN..

1. Lack of logistic ships. Not enough to conduct blue water operations on a continuous basis.(6 or more months).

2. Lack of suppy bases away from the PRC. What would the PLAN do in the event of a conflict away from it's shores. (yes I know the PRC has never been a conquering nation)

3. Too many older outdated ships such as some of the Jianghu DD's. As an example the USN has no second line forces like this.

4. No large amphibous type ships such as a LPH or LPD type.

5. Lack of frontline "state of the art" ASW helo.

7. Lack of comonality between ships. As an example Tico's and A/B are very similar. All USN CV's are basically the same. USN has only 4 classes of subs. Comonality makes training, operations and maintainence easier.

8. Conscripts in the PLAN. Personally I do not like conscripts. Sorry :( Conscripts are not on board a ship long enough to be properly trained on the systems they will operate. You need seasoned professionals to operate high tech equipment...

9. No aircraft carrier.

Question. :confused: .What is the durablity of the power plants on PLAN ships? Could they stay away from their homeports for 6+ months like the USN and still be in top notch operational condition? :confused: :confused:

One more thing..I can't prove this with a link... but.. in my experience no navy in the world trains and prepares like the USN. That has always been my experience. Just how much does the PLAN train? How often are their ships at sea for operations? How long do they stay out to sea? How well trained are the PLAN sailors in damage control and firefighting?

I hope you fellows read my post carefully and answer some of my questions.

Thanks.

[Totoro]

About the things Idont said:

First and second orders of business are exactly being taken care of. To the best of my knowledge china is looking into maritime control planes and aew platforms. It is to be expected they will also train adequately. Also, numerous chinese papars have acknowledged their lack of navy air defences. Of course the plan is to build numerous 052C and subsequent ships, adequately equipped.

As for third thing, and this is the same remark i have to most of things bd popeye said - what for? What do you think china's short term goal is? Things you have listed are all directly related to trying to be a blue water navy, ready to combat something the likes of USN and do amphibious invasions thousands of miles away from home. Those are simply not china's short term goals. USN is a force like no other. Pretty much all the things bd popeye criticized PLAN for can be applied to 99% of the rest of the world navies. Royal navy doesnt have nuclear powered surface ships. Their endurance at sea isn't really much different than what PLAN ships have.

And why is that? Because the rest of the world, including royal navy, doesn't play a world policeman who pushes its interests everywhere in the world. Yes, of course US economy allows for USN to be that strong and i'm sure most countries would do the same thing if they had the same power/technology but fact is - you use a force for the goals you set to yourself. And current PLAN's goal is not to invade thousands or miles away or to fight USN in the middle of the pacific. If you asked them they'd like nothing better than not engaging USN at all. What they are doing is advancing in areas which will let them invade taiwan and *maybe* try to keep a limited US force at bay.

Some of the things like conscripts or outdated ships or outdated helos i agree with, mostly the lag in technology. But things like no carrier, no blue water logistic ships, alleged lack of durability??? What for? They lack durability compared to who? USN which uses nuclear reactors, and to an extent RN, and that's it. China does not have nor does it need in the short term a blue water navy. Sure, in 50 years time things may and probably will be different but so many things can change by then its ludicrous to rush it. Why would china push an expensive true blue water navy until their economy can support it? And right now it still can't. When china's economy is as powerful as US, then they will have a blue water navy to compare with USN.

[Dongfeng]

The true weakness of the PLAN in the ASW capability is the lack of suitable systems such as sonar (VDS/HMS), combat systems, and ASW aircraft/helicopters. They can build as many ASW frigates as they like, but they are not going to catch US subs.

Question. .What is the durablity of the power plants on PLAN ships? Could they stay away from their homeports for 6+ months like the USN and still be in top notch operational condition?

The PLAN has conducted several long distance cruises since the late 1990s. The longest one is the global cruise in 2002, which lasted for just over 4 months. I guess there is no need at the moment for the PLAN to stay in the sea for over 6 months.

[MIGleader]

the plan should stick to the asia region. no need for world projection. lack of aaw? the 52bs, 52c's, and sovs are all pretty capable aaw platforms. they're getting the 51c and improved sovs soon.

theyre builbing more and more logistic ships, and i see a carrier comming soon.
they dont really need really big asw abilities, since taiwan has only 4 subs and two of them are from wwII.

the plan does have a few maritime patrol planes. they tend to go into foreign airspace.

[adeptitus]

My "Top 3" areas of improvement:

1) Need more (4-8) SSBN's for credible secondary nuclear strike capability.

2) Both the Air Force and Navy need to switch from conscript to all-volunteer service. This will prolly require a reduction in size with increases in budget, pay, benefits, and training. You can attract people by offering "free" 2 year technical/trade college degree through the Navy.

3) Reduce the number of platforms & systems in service. This will be a long-term goal since the PLAN is still integrating a variety of domestic and imported systems.

[MIGleader]

ssbns are a thing of the cold war. they havnt been used. the plan will probably be volunteer in the future, as with all branches of military.

retire old jianweis and luda's!

[tphuang]

I think it's far simpler to just say that China needs to build more of its advanced type of ships.

Since it doesn't need to project power, it just needs a lot more advanced frigates, destroyers, FACs and subs.

[ordinary dude]

People always point to PLAN subs as a credible threat to US CBG, but think about what US subs can do to the PLAN fleet. PLAN needs to upgrade ASW fast, the JSDF has more than enough p-3s to deal with PLAN subs

[jackbh]

Alot of people mention that China not having a carrier force is a weakness, however; I have read some article saying that carriers are soon to be obsolete as long as within 50 years.

To have a carrier force is very expensive to build and memtain. To have a credible carrier force you also need alot of support crafts for the carrier, which creates alot of logistical problems. And in my opinion carrier is a good offensive option, but it also could be a nightmare to defend since it's such a big target.

Maybe China will be successful bypassing the carrier stage of naval affair and build a navy for the future.

[bd popeye]

All very interesting responses and staying on topic is great! :)

What do you think china's short term goal is?

I don't know for sure :confused: I think that the PRC wants to be a "Super Power".Ecnomically and militarlly strong. In order ,in my opinion, to be a Super Power a country needs a blue water Navy. The PLAN is not a blue water navy. Shipping lanes need to be protected and kept open. Commerce needs to be proctected. That's what a blue water Navy can do.

Royal navy doesnt have nuclear powered surface ships. Their endurance at sea isn't really much different than what PLAN ships have.

No the Brits don't. The only nuclear surface ships the USN has are CVN's. All other surface ships are conventionally powered. The USN retired all of it's other surface nuclear ships some years ago. Why? One reason was a lack of nuke techs to take care of them. :(

And why is that? Because the rest of the world, including royal navy, doesn't play a world policeman who pushes its interests everywhere in the world. Yes, of course US economy allows for USN to be that strong and i'm sure most countries would do the same thing if they had the same power/technology but fact is - you use a force for the goals you set to yourself

Ther stated mission of the US Navy is to control the sea. Keep the sea lanes open for commerece. Maintain a naval presence in time of crisis.(power projection) That policy has been in effect for over 100 years.

Sure, in 50 years time things may and probably will be different but so many things can change by then its ludicrous to rush it. Why would china push an expensive true blue water navy until their economy can support it? And right now it still can't. When china's economy is as powerful as US, then they will have a blue water navy to compare with USN.

As I previous stated to be a true "Super Power" in my opinion a large powerful country such as the PRC needs a true blue water Navy. And I think that in the future the PRC will. Now is the time for the PRC to look to the future and start building. And I know they are.

[crazyinsane105]

Well, there has to be a reason for lacking a decent ASW capability. Yes, probably because that China has yet to develop a decent ASW capability, but if US subs were such a big problem, wouldn't the PLAN be frantic about getting a decent ASW capability from Russia? In my opinion, yes, the US has many subs, but they are all over the world plus production of US subs has hit rock bottom since the Cold War ended. So maybe the PLAN estimated how many subs the US could put in the Taiwan arena and decided that it wasn't a massive threat. The bigger threats would be the aircraft carriers and their escorts. The best way to counter them would be through submarines (surface ships would be good, but the PLAN has very limited air defense ships in its arsenal).

[Dongfeng]

As I previous stated to be a true "Super Power" in my opinion a large powerful country such as the PRC needs a true blue water Navy. And I think that in the future the PRC will. Now is the time for the PRC to look to the future and start building. And I know they are.
As long as the US does not publish yet another "Chinese Military Report" stating China threat by building a blue water navy ;)

Compared to its ground forces, the development of Chinese air and naval power have been fast. The PLAN is building new ships as fast as it can. The number of new ships commissioned each year is not limited by China's economic or shipbuilding capability, but the PLAN's ability to train ecoungh qualified staffs to operate these ships in such a short time.

China definitely recognise the importance of developing a blue water navy. Still remember the PLAN's "three step" develpment plan? The first step is to modernise its fleet including new ships and subs by 2000. This was achieved by the commission of Luhu, Luhai and Sovremenny class destroyers, as well as Jiangwei-II frigates and Song subs. The second step is to build an aircraft carrier oriented battle group that can reach the second island chain by 2020. The third step will be to build a true blue water global navy comparable to the USN in capabilities by 2050. There is still long way to go but China is on the right track, as long as her economic development can support this strategy.

[Totoro]

I think that the PRC wants to be a "Super Power".Ecnomically and militarlly strong. In order ,in my opinion, to be a Super Power a country needs a blue water Navy. The PLAN is not a blue water navy. Shipping lanes need to be protected and kept open. Commerce needs to be proctected. That's what a blue water Navy can do.

I get the feeling you're trying to apply USN's mission to other navies. The number of shipping lanes and the amount of traffic all over the world is so huge even USN would need to be some 5 times larger to monitor and protect it fully. USN mission, just like whole US armed forces, is to project power, absolutely, but also it is making sure it can fight multiple wars at a time, at different parts of the world. If US economy can support it, US will always try to be stronger than several other countries combined. USN was build for world domination.

What i'm saying is that you can have a blue water navy, able to engage part of the forces of likes of USN without the need to control the world seas. Yes, such navy would be able to sail across the world if needed, have all the logistics support that a blue water navy has, but quantity wise, a blue water navy does not need a dozen carriers, 50 nuclear subs, 100+ destroyers etc. Quality yes, ability coming from that quality, yes. But sheer numbers for world seas control - that has little to do with the core defintion of a blue water navy. China's navy needs to be able to deny enemies any acces to mainland, it needs to protect and monitor surrounding seas and needs an expeditionary force if long strike missions are needed in indian and/or pacific ocean. That's it. And by 2050 it's quite possible that will be achieved. What china's navy doesn't need is to have fleets cruising in almost every sea of every ocean on the world. Numbers really come to play only if you're planning to wage war against certain enemy. So china should calculate - what kind of numbers it needs if it wants to wage war with taiwan, what numbers against japan, or what numbers against US.



As I previous stated to be a true "Super Power" in my opinion a large powerful country such as the PRC needs a true blue water Navy. And I think that in the future the PRC will. Now is the time for the PRC to look to the future and start building. And I know they are.

I guess that's the issue here. The definition and mission of a 'super power'. We just have different views there. In my opinion no country should want to be a military super power like US is today, it is just too costly and too dangerous and chances are that ultimately it'll come around and bite US on the ass. But to go on about that would be going into politics and moderators would go mad :D.

On an another note, just what is the second chain of islands? Which islands are we talking about there?

[walter]

The definition and mission of a 'super power'. We just have different views there. In my opinion no country should want to be a military super power like US is today, it is just too costly and too dangerous and chances are that ultimately it'll come around and bite US on the ass.

this is a fair view, especially considering american foreign policy already has to some degree come around to 'bite it in the ass' (i.e. world opinion of USA). Of course it would be impossible to know what the world would look like today without the US to counter Soviet expasionism during the cold war......

but more on to topic.
Do you think China is or is not striving towards military super power status?

[bd popeye]

Totoro you have very well thought out responses. Excellent.

What i'm saying is that you can have a blue water navy, able to engage part of the forces of likes of USN without the need to control the world seas. Yes, such navy would be able to sail across the world if needed, have all the logistics support that a blue water navy has, but quantity wise, a blue water navy does not need a dozen carriers, 50 nuclear subs, 100+ destroyers etc. Quality yes, ability coming from that quality, yes. But sheer numbers for world seas control - that has little to do with the core defintion of a blue water navy

I understand. So your idea is to have a navy that could meet challenges as they arise without playing world policeman? Correct?..That's power projection to some extent on a case by case basis. Similar to the UK and France.

On an another note, just what is the second chain of islands? Which islands are we talking about there

Could he be refering to the Spratley Islands near the Philippines.

The definition and mission of a 'super power'. We just have different views there. In my opinion no country should want to be a military super power like US is today, it is just too costly and too dangerous and chances are that ultimately it'll come around and bite US on the ass.

Agreed! 100%

Excellent responses all! I love it when we stay on topic! :)

[tphuang]

this is a fair view, especially considering american foreign policy already has to some degree come around to 'bite it in the ass' (i.e. world opinion of USA). Of course it would be impossible to know what the world would look like today without the US to counter Soviet expasionism during the cold war......

but more on to topic.
Do you think China is or is not striving towards military super power status?
long term, China is striving toward military super power status. Look at what China did with its space mission. It's clearly doing this as a matter of prestige. It wants to be treated as a super power. In order to do so, it will strive to build its military to that point.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I have some questions about ASW. What are the key weapons used in ASW warfare? And normally in a fleet, the ASW warships are destroyers, right?

[crazyinsane105]

I have some questions about ASW. What are the key weapons used in ASW warfare? And normally in a fleet, the ASW warships are destroyers, right?

Well, the Type 23's are frigates and they are pretty nasty.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Why haven't the PLAN invested in the developement of a new ASW destroyer? Currently, all the are investing in are anti-air destroyers and guided-missile destroyers.

[Totoro]

Well, USN likes to say that best weapon against a submarine is another submarine. But basically, only real weapon is good sonar/antisub torpedo combination. Helicopters seem to be asw platforms of choice for surface fleets. They have sonars that they lower/dip into water, track for subs, can quickly change position (compared to surface fleet/other subs) and then launch torpedoes. Whereas using an active sonar on a surface ship/sub would pretty much give away the position of it from miles away, endangering the ship/sub, helos can go out of ships trajectories/miles in advance of the mother ship and actively seek subs without fear of being engaged by sub or giving endangering their mother ship.

As for why china doesnt seem to be pushing asw capabilities... i guess they dont think conflict with USN is likely. And that's pretty much only enemy where strong asw would be needed. All the other neighbours and especially taiwan as most likely enemy, have much weaker sub forces.

[Totoro]

Do you think China is or is not striving towards military super power status?

Its not striving towards becoming a military super power status the way us is. It is my opinion their goal is to be strong enough to wage war with any country, including US, which would definitely label them a military super power but i don't believe they're seeking a global military super power status that US has and wants. Basically, at least till 2050 i don't see china trying to project military power outside easter indian ocean and western pacific ocean. Nuclear forces, yeah, they'll keep those, to deter other countries from any funny ideas, but making forces capable waging large scale wars half a globe away - no.


So your idea is to have a navy that could meet challenges as they arise without playing world policeman? Correct?..That's power projection to some extent on a case by case basis. Similar to the UK and France.


Very similar, yes. I'd say France and especially UK are good examples. Russia would be a bad example as in its current state theres still too many cold war army remnants, lingering from the cold war doctrines and their goal to be shoulder to shoulder with US. :p

[McZosch]

Basically, at least till 2050 i don't see china trying to project military power outside easter indian ocean and western pacific ocean.
India will be interested to hear that.

PLAN has three external problems: the "unsinkable aircraft carriers" Taiwan, Japan and USA. And one internal: talk, talk, talk.

All of them have modern and capable navies. With 4 DDH-class ships (and likely procurement of JSFs), Japan will have 8 aircraft-capable ships by 2010.

What does China have? A few modern destroyers and frigates, and a big bunch of mostly obsolete equipment.

Modern equipment is mostly talked about here than built. In the same time, Japan builds another 4 Kongos, the USN 14 Burkes and 2 CVN.

China posseses large numbers of subs.
What are subs originally supposed to do? They were build as a jeune-ecole option against a large battle-fleet. They should make it more risky for the superior navy to attack the inferior. Subs are entirely lacking force-projection-capabilities. Tactically, they are offensive ships. Strategically, they are defensive. So it is a defensive doctrine. No war has been won, only using subs.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

India will be interested to hear that.

PLAN has three external problems: the "unsinkable aircraft carriers" Taiwan, Japan and USA. And one internal: talk, talk, talk.

All of them have modern and capable navies. With 4 DDH-class ships (and likely procurement of JSFs), Japan will have 8 aircraft-capable ships by 2010.

What does China have? A few modern destroyers and frigates, and a big bunch of mostly obsolete equipment.

Modern equipment is mostly talked about here than built. In the same time, Japan builds another 4 Kongos, the USN 14 Burkes and 2 CVN.

China posseses large numbers of subs.
What are subs originally supposed to do? They were build as a jeune-ecole option against a large battle-fleet. They should make it more risky for the superior navy to attack the inferior. Subs are entirely lacking force-projection-capabilities. Tactically, they are offensive ships. Strategically, they are defensive. So it is a defensive doctrine. No war has been won, only using subs.


If Hitler was only smarter and let his naval strategists do what they needed to do, then the U-boats could've won WWII for Hitler.

[MIGleader]

a few kidds and lafeyettes do not give taiwan a modern navy. china is building two new destroyers, ordered two more, and is building and ordering many subs. they are also considering a carrier, not just talking it.

You seem like a popagandad american mczosch.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The two Chinese Sovs can wipe out the whole Taiwanese navy.

With PLAAF help.

[IDonT]

a few kidds and lafeyettes do not give taiwan a modern navy. china is building two new destroyers, ordered two more, and is building and ordering many subs. they are also considering a carrier, not just talking it.

You seem like a popagandad american mczosch.

Those 4 Kidds are more modern than the entire PLAAF fleet. Standard 2 with New Threat Upgrade(NTU) are nothing to laugh about.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Those 4 Kidds are more modern than the entire PLAAF fleet. Standard 2 with New Threat Upgrade(NTU) are nothing to laugh about.

Cool, you must feel special! You are like the only person on earth to consider a Kidd as more capable than a 956EM. At best, the Kidd is only marginally superior to the 051C. The 052 Destroyers are also not far behind the Kidd. After all, the 052s have their own AEGIS-like system.

[tphuang]

Those 4 Kidds are more modern than the entire PLAAF fleet. Standard 2 with New Threat Upgrade(NTU) are nothing to laugh about.
check this http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/2001/taiwan-010425.htm

[IDonT]

check this http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/2001/taiwan-010425.htm


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-993.htm

[MIGleader]

the 52c and B and 956ems will own the kidds. if taiwan rejoins china peacefully, china will have Four of the latest us weapons...

[IDonT]

the 52c and B and 956ems will own the kidds. if taiwan rejoins china peacefully, china will have Four of the latest us weapons...

The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney with the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremnny is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat.

[tphuang]

The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney with the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremnny is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat.
what's the range on the harpoon missles?

[BrotherofSnake]

The range of the harpoon is over 67 nautical miles.

[IDonT]

http://navysite.de/weapons/harpoon.htm

[tphuang]

The range of the harpoon is over 67 nautical miles.
that doesn't sound like a lot at all.

[tphuang]

http://navysite.de/weapons/harpoon.htm
cool, the slamER definitely has an impressive range. Is that range for both surface launched and air launched or just air launched as listed on that web page?

[IDonT]

that doesn't sound like a lot at all.

The US navy got rid of its large long range anti ship ordinances after the cold war. There were not enough targets.

Tomahawk anti-ship missiles had a range of 250 miles.
The problem with long range anti-ship missiles is over the horizon targeting. You can't see a ship beacuse the curvature of the earth "hides" it. Besides, the US relies on its aerial assets for anti-ship strikes. B-1 and B52 bombers can carry an insane amounts of harpoons.

[tphuang]

The US navy got rid of its large long range anti ship ordinances after the cold war. There were not enough targets.

Tomahawk anti-ship missiles had a range of 250 miles.
The problem with long range anti-ship missiles is over the horizon targeting. You can't see a ship beacuse the curvature of the earth "hides" it. Besides, the US relies on its aerial assets for anti-ship strikes. B-1 and B52 bombers can carry an insane amounts of harpoons.
I guess PLAN will have to launch it's missles before B-2s get to it then.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Yakont's have a 250km range. That is far superior to the range on the Harpoon. And also, 956EMs can fire 16 Yakonts, which is far superior to firing 8 Sunburns and 8 Harpoons.

[tphuang]

Yakont's have a 250km range. That is far superior to the range on the Harpoon. And also, 956EMs can fire 16 Yakonts, which is far superior to firing 8 Sunburns and 8 Harpoons.
The YJ-85 should have a 300 KM range. The issue is no whether or not our missles have a greater range, but whether or not we can detect them before they start to send cruise missles at us.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The YJ-85 should have a 300 KM range. The issue is no whether or not our missles have a greater range, but whether or not we can detect them before they start to send cruise missles at us.

We can use our sattelite recconaissance system to spot them!

[IDonT]

We can use our sattelite recconaissance system to spot them!


PLAN destroyers will be sunk well before they get within range of their anti-ship missiles.

Surface Action Group are classified by the US navy as class C threat.

[Totoro]

Shouldn't you put the things in real world war context? There will never be one on one engagments. Nor is it likely even a fleet vs fleet engagement will be in neutral teritorry in the middle of the pacific.

Realistically, chinese won't go after the us before us goes after the chinese. That means USN getting in range to attack PLAN which, in turn, would stick close enough to the coast to enjoy PLAAF air cover, possibly even air defence system. If PLAN is to try to strike a USN force it will do so when it decides it has a chance, meaning overwhelming numbers. Of course it'd be suicide rushing something like three grouped CBGs. Same thing with US forces. They will wait until they can deliver a powerful enough blow. Attacking early with insufficient forces, risking a loss, is just plain stupid.

A really good move on china's behalf would be putting okinawa base out of comission. Of course, only if US attacks somewhere else first early enough, before they even have enough forces in the area to defend from such attack - which is unlikely. Then again, such a mission would probably involve PLAAF/ airlifted ground forces much more than PLAN so it's kinda off topic here.

Once again, all these arguments have any point if we agree that US would not commit half (or more) of it's navy and air forces to the war but a smaller chunk, something china could fight off.

[IDonT]

Shouldn't you put the things in real world war context? There will never be one on one engagments. Nor is it likely even a fleet vs fleet engagement will be in neutral teritorry in the middle of the pacific.

Realistically, chinese won't go after the us before us goes after the chinese. That means USN getting in range to attack PLAN which, in turn, would stick close enough to the coast to enjoy PLAAF air cover, possibly even air defence system. If PLAN is to try to strike a USN force it will do so when it decides it has a chance, meaning overwhelming numbers. Of course it'd be suicide rushing something like three grouped CBGs. Same thing with US forces. They will wait until they can deliver a powerful enough blow. Attacking early with insufficient forces, risking a loss, is just plain stupid.

A really good move on china's behalf would be putting okinawa base out of comission. Of course, only if US attacks somewhere else first early enough, before they even have enough forces in the area to defend from such attack - which is unlikely. Then again, such a mission would probably involve PLAAF/ airlifted ground forces much more than PLAN so it's kinda off topic here.

Once again, all these arguments have any point if we agree that US would not commit half (or more) of it's navy and air forces to the war but a smaller chunk, something china could fight off.


The only plausible context for an armed conflict between PRC and USA is Taiwan. An unprovoke invasion of the island, unprovoke meaning the Taiwanese did not uninamously declared independence, will have the PLA going on the offensive.

Going on the offensive means that you have go uncover your forces, lgroup them, and offend someone (taiwan). In which case, PRC's forces will be out in the open, away from the SAM umbrella and further away from fighter cover. The further you are from the coast, the less effective your fighter cover, more fuel spent on transit than cover, and the more effective your opponent's fighter cover will be.

USA will not attack Chinese soil and I don't think China will attack a third party soil. Both sides will not want to enlarge the conflict further.

[Totoro]

We agree there, no one would want to escalate a war over taiwan into something bigger. Any possible invasion would probably be accompanied by huge diplomatic effort trying to assure the third party countries that taiwan would be left with a certain level of autonomy. But if it comes a full fledged battles between US and china, it'd be some time after the start of invasion on taiwan. Brunt of US forces needed for a war against china is just too far away for US to help taiwan in time. I see china starting airlifted ground troops invasion, establishing a perimeter of sams/navy ships on/around taiwan before US gathers enough forces for a lethal blow. Note i said lethal blow. Of course earlier attacks would be possible but US would just not enjoy enough of an overwhelming force and its losses would be relatively big, even if still smaller than china's losses. In my opinion, china can afford such bigger losses - to an extent.

[IDonT]

We agree there, no one would want to escalate a war over taiwan into something bigger. Any possible invasion would probably be accompanied by huge diplomatic effort trying to assure the third party countries that taiwan would be left with a certain level of autonomy. But if it comes a full fledged battles between US and china, it'd be some time after the start of invasion on taiwan. Brunt of US forces needed for a war against china is just too far away for US to help taiwan in time. I see china starting airlifted ground troops invasion, establishing a perimeter of sams/navy ships on/around taiwan before US gathers enough forces for a lethal blow. Note i said lethal blow. Of course earlier attacks would be possible but US would just not enjoy enough of an overwhelming force and its losses would be relatively big, even if still smaller than china's losses. In my opinion, china can afford such bigger losses - to an extent.


I believe that the US has made it clear that if Taiwan declares its independence unilaterally, it stands alone. The US will intervene if PRC invades Taiwan as long as such an invasion was not caused by a Taiwanese declaration of independence.

In such an invasion, it is the task of Taiwan's forces to hold the line until the US can concentrate its forces. Time will not be in China's side.

This is the tasked that China must do in order to achieve its goals:
1.) Gain air superiority
2.) Gain naval superiority in the straights
3.) Gain and hold a beach head from numerically superior taiwanese army.
4.) Have sufficient logistical capability to provide all the necesities of an invading army. (the bigger the army, the biggier the logistical capability)
5.) Ensure the safety of your logistical lines.

In these endevours, the defender has the advantage:

1.) Air battles will be fought in and around the Taiwanese airspace. Taiwanese pilots who ejected can be easily recovered and brought back into combat. PLAAF's pilots will be prisoners of war. Pilot attrition will be in Taiwan's favor. Its planes will also have support from SAMS.

2.) Naval battles in the straight will be brutal. However, since PRC is the aggressor, it needs to come out and go near Taiwans' shore, where Taiwan can take advantage of its littorals. PLAN's ship will have to face the Taiwanese Kidds, Lafayette, and multitudes of shore base anti-ship batteries. We all know that PLAN ships have trouble engaging sea skimming missiles.

3.) The first wave will have the unenvious job of holding the beach head from a Taiwanese counter attack. They will be out numbered and will be facing heavy armor. Currently, PLAN has the capability of sea lifting 1 Armored division OR 2 infantry "light" divisions. It will take at least 24 hours to bring in the next wave. However, PLAN sea lift capability only can bring reinforcement or more supplies for the 1st wave.

4.) As said earlier, PLAN sealift capability can only carry 1 armored division OR 2 light infantry division. These ships are slow and not well armed and will be easy targets for shore based anti-ship batteries.

5.) Plan needs to protect its sea-lift capabilities beacuse they alone can supply its army. If sufficient capability is sunk, its army in taiwan will not have enough food, ammo, and supplies to go on the offensive.

[Totoro]

I believe that the US has made it clear that if Taiwan declares its independence unilaterally, it stands alone. The US will intervene if PRC invades Taiwan as long as such an invasion was not caused by a Taiwanese declaration of independence.


I was not aware that's the US policy. That makes china's job much easier as i think most likely way for a taiwan invasion to start is if they declare independence. I don't see china gaining anything from invading before that, for no reason.



This is the tasked that China must do in order to achieve its goals:
1.) Gain air superiority
2.) Gain naval superiority in the straights
3.) Gain and hold a beach head from numerically superior taiwanese army.
4.) Have sufficient logistical capability to provide all the necesities of an invading army. (the bigger the army, the biggier the logistical capability)
5.) Ensure the safety of your logistical lines.


I agree. What i don't agree is the order of events you seem to have imposed on china's forces in the further text. There's no way a sane person will start a seaborne invasion without air and sea superiority. I also don't see any major PLAN forces going anywhere near taiwan before air superiority is achieved. Air battle would be key.



1.) Air battles will be fought in and around the Taiwanese airspace. Taiwanese pilots who ejected can be easily recovered and brought back into combat. PLAAF's pilots will be prisoners of war. Pilot attrition will be in Taiwan's favor. Its planes will also have support from SAMS.


This is a completely moot point as we're not talking about ww2 period battle of britain like war. Taiwanese and chinese already have more pilots than planes as it is. And there's no way taiwanese will be getting/producing more planes to put into combat like british did in battle of britain. Once those 300 or so taiwanese planes are out of comission - that's it, there won't be any more coming. So that leaves us with SAMs, on ground and sea.

Aside of what Kidd destroyers will bring to the combat with their sm2, taiwanese naval sams are fairly weak, limited to sm1 and crotale systems. Ground sams are, in my opinion, badly positioned, one skybow battery wasted on the island just 16km off china's coast, others (this includes mobile patriot batteries) protecting cities on the north and south of the island, halving the ability to make an inter-protecting network of sams. Right now taiwan has 9 patriot (or similar class) sam batteries. Even if that's increased by 6 pac3 batteries it is still far from an inpenetrable shield.

Yes, chinese air force losses, especially ground attack aircraft forces, will be absolutely huge. But chinese can afford them. Taiwan, on the other hand, has comparatively limited force. It is my opinion chinese air force alone (well, combined with ballistic/cruise missile attack) is capable of neutralizing taiwanese air forces and theatre defense sams within days.


2.) Naval battles in the straight will be brutal. However, since PRC is the aggressor, it needs to come out and go near Taiwans' shore, where Taiwan can take advantage of its littorals. PLAN's ship will have to face the Taiwanese Kidds, Lafayette, and multitudes of shore base anti-ship batteries. We all know that PLAN ships have trouble engaging sea skimming missiles.


To continue, after the first couple of days needed for neutralizing taiwanese AF and long range sams, a few more days of PLAAF ground attacks will be needed to supress the ground launched antiship platforms, with help of limited forays of PLAN into the strait to draw those platforms out. At the same time, major PLAN force would be able to venture into the strait to a small extent, still out of reach of taiwanese harpoons. As for PLAN vs taiwanese navy - taiwan would be out of air cover, china would have air support and antiship missile detection range and launch range is on chinese side.

"We all know that PLAN ships have trouble engaging sea skimming missiles." is something along the lines of 'we all know mexicans are lazy and smelly'. It's blatant discrimination. Compared to USN, probably, but there's no proof that taiwanese are more capable of engaging chinese supersonic seaskimmers than chinese are capable of engaging taiwanese seaskimmers. Besides, with no air cover, no maritime control planes and early warning platforms, i'd like to see taiwanese conduct any serious offensive moves without heavy losses.
It is a battle that'd be played out at china's pace as taiwanese would not be able to afford to take the initiative. The strait and coast of taiwan is also perfect for subs and taiwanese navy would be rather trapped that way too.


3.) The first wave will have the unenvious job of holding the beach head from a Taiwanese counter attack. They will be out numbered and will be facing heavy armor. Currently, PLAN has the capability of sea lifting 1 Armored division OR 2 infantry "light" divisions. It will take at least 24 hours to bring in the next wave. However, PLAN sea lift capability only can bring reinforcement or more supplies for the 1st wave.


Please make up your mind. Are we talking about today, when taiwan has no kidd class destroyers/ additional orion airplanes/newly purchased subs and just 120 amraams in its stocks or are we talking about some year 2008 or so when all those forces will be operational but china will also have newly built landing ships, doubled airlift capability, years worth of j10 production, newly delivered additional kilos and songs and so on?

I remember i discussed with you those 24 hours needed to send another wave. Did you respond to that post of mine? Please count the number of chinese harbours in vicinity of taiwan, the distance to taiwanese beaches and endurance/speed of chinese ships.


4.) As said earlier, PLAN sealift capability can only carry 1 armored division OR 2 light infantry division. These ships are slow and not well armed and will be easy targets for shore based anti-ship batteries.


Chinese would be crazy to start a seaborne invasion while shore based anti ship batteries would still be free to operate at considerable efficiency. I don't see a seaborne invasion starting anytime in the first 7 days of initial air attacks. A seaborne invasion force that does come will most probably not be sent to establish a beachhead as an airlifted force, delivered before that, will be tasked with it, as well as taking some useful runways for reinforcements. With new il76s (we're not talking about war happening tomorrow, as we have established) PLA can airlift over 16 000 fully equipped troops in first wave, and thats not counting any commercial airliners that'd help the cause once good runways are secured. Furthermore, with the level or urbanization taiwan has achieved, combined with its geography, armored forces will be less of an asset. Also please keep in mind that any large scale movement of tanks are easely dettered if enemy has air superiority like china would have by then.


5.) Plan needs to protect its sea-lift capabilities beacuse they alone can supply its army. If sufficient capability is sunk, its army in taiwan will not have enough food, ammo, and supplies to go on the offensive.

Agreed to an extent. Which is exactly why china should not rush things and send sea transports before they can be adequately protected. By that time additional commercial ships would be used too, for additional transport capacitiy, used in areas of very low threat.

To sum it up, i just do not see how taiwan can whitstand and fight off chinese invasion alone. If US stands by it fully then yeah, tables would turn completely. And taiwanese ability to fight off chinese gets smaller with every year now, taiwan just cant keep up with chinese buildup.

[IDonT]

I was not aware that's the US policy. That makes china's job much easier as i think most likely way for a taiwan invasion to start is if they declare independence. I don't see china gaining anything from invading before that, for no reason.




I agree. What i don't agree is the order of events you seem to have imposed on china's forces in the further text. There's no way a sane person will start a seaborne invasion without air and sea superiority. I also don't see any major PLAN forces going anywhere near taiwan before air superiority is achieved. Air battle would be key.




This is a completely moot point as we're not talking about ww2 period battle of britain like war. Taiwanese and chinese already have more pilots than planes as it is. And there's no way taiwanese will be getting/producing more planes to put into combat like british did in battle of britain. Once those 300 or so taiwanese planes are out of comission - that's it, there won't be any more coming. So that leaves us with SAMs, on ground and sea.

Aside of what Kidd destroyers will bring to the combat with their sm2, taiwanese naval sams are fairly weak, limited to sm1 and crotale systems. Ground sams are, in my opinion, badly positioned, one skybow battery wasted on the island just 16km off china's coast, others (this includes mobile patriot batteries) protecting cities on the north and south of the island, halving the ability to make an inter-protecting network of sams. Right now taiwan has 9 patriot (or similar class) sam batteries. Even if that's increased by 6 pac3 batteries it is still far from an inpenetrable shield.

Yes, chinese air force losses, especially ground attack aircraft forces, will be absolutely huge. But chinese can afford them. Taiwan, on the other hand, has comparatively limited force. It is my opinion chinese air force alone (well, combined with ballistic/cruise missile attack) is capable of neutralizing taiwanese air forces and theatre defense sams within days.



To continue, after the first couple of days needed for neutralizing taiwanese AF and long range sams, a few more days of PLAAF ground attacks will be needed to supress the ground launched antiship platforms, with help of limited forays of PLAN into the strait to draw those platforms out. At the same time, major PLAN force would be able to venture into the strait to a small extent, still out of reach of taiwanese harpoons. As for PLAN vs taiwanese navy - taiwan would be out of air cover, china would have air support and antiship missile detection range and launch range is on chinese side.

"We all know that PLAN ships have trouble engaging sea skimming missiles." is something along the lines of 'we all know mexicans are lazy and smelly'. It's blatant discrimination. Compared to USN, probably, but there's no proof that taiwanese are more capable of engaging chinese supersonic seaskimmers than chinese are capable of engaging taiwanese seaskimmers. Besides, with no air cover, no maritime control planes and early warning platforms, i'd like to see taiwanese conduct any serious offensive moves without heavy losses.
It is a battle that'd be played out at china's pace as taiwanese would not be able to afford to take the initiative. The strait and coast of taiwan is also perfect for subs and taiwanese navy would be rather trapped that way too.



Please make up your mind. Are we talking about today, when taiwan has no kidd class destroyers/ additional orion airplanes/newly purchased subs and just 120 amraams in its stocks or are we talking about some year 2008 or so when all those forces will be operational but china will also have newly built landing ships, doubled airlift capability, years worth of j10 production, newly delivered additional kilos and songs and so on?

I remember i discussed with you those 24 hours needed to send another wave. Did you respond to that post of mine? Please count the number of chinese harbours in vicinity of taiwan, the distance to taiwanese beaches and endurance/speed of chinese ships.



Chinese would be crazy to start a seaborne invasion while shore based anti ship batteries would still be free to operate at considerable efficiency. I don't see a seaborne invasion starting anytime in the first 7 days of initial air attacks. A seaborne invasion force that does come will most probably not be sent to establish a beachhead as an airlifted force, delivered before that, will be tasked with it, as well as taking some useful runways for reinforcements. With new il76s (we're not talking about war happening tomorrow, as we have established) PLA can airlift over 16 000 fully equipped troops in first wave, and thats not counting any commercial airliners that'd help the cause once good runways are secured. Furthermore, with the level or urbanization taiwan has achieved, combined with its geography, armored forces will be less of an asset. Also please keep in mind that any large scale movement of tanks are easely dettered if enemy has air superiority like china would have by then.



Agreed to an extent. Which is exactly why china should not rush things and send sea transports before they can be adequately protected. By that time additional commercial ships would be used too, for additional transport capacitiy, used in areas of very low threat.

To sum it up, i just do not see how taiwan can whitstand and fight off chinese invasion alone. If US stands by it fully then yeah, tables would turn completely. And taiwanese ability to fight off chinese gets smaller with every year now, taiwan just cant keep up with chinese buildup.

D-Day vs Taiwan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/taiwan-d-day.htm

The amphibious operation against Taiwan is a great discussion, I will open a new thread. See you there.

[sumdud]

When was China getting Yakhonts for their Sovs?
The Kidds aren't kidding. The strait is narrow and you don't need much.

The YJ-12 has potential and since the USN and ROCN still uses Harpoons, C-801s and 2s aren't out of the question.

[vincelee]

I personally do not believe that Normandy is an appropriate analogy to an invasion by the PLA on Taiwan. The reason is that Taiwan doesn't have the strategic depth Nazi German had at the time, also, you're discounting the greatly decreased reaction time of both sides due to advances in technology. Such a change would favor numerical superiority. You can argue that the Taiwanese C4I is superior, but there are two problems

1) Taiwan's military exercises have uncovered some serious flows in C2 capabilities

2) The supposed advance of Taiwanese C4I structure does not outweigh Chinese numerical advantage

[MIGleader]

When was China getting Yakhonts for their Sovs?
The Kidds aren't kidding. The strait is narrow and you don't need much.

The YJ-12 has potential and since the USN and ROCN still uses Harpoons, C-801s and 2s aren't out of the question.

look it up. every one knows the 956ems will feature yahkont. it will give an increased power to thge plan.;

[Gollevainen]

look it up. every one knows the 956ems will feature yahkont. it will give an increased power to thge plan.;

If so, please explain why all the images showing the new Sovromenyes building for china features launchers for Moskit SSM?

[MIGleader]

well, i have seen only one pic of so, and the launcher's modifications may have been too inconspicous to notuice. the misssles have a very similar design.

[Totoro]

Like lots of things concerning chinese military, reports about new sovermennies are somewhat conflicting. I've seen articles claiming they would carry yakhonts, yes, but i've also seen many more articles saying they will instead carry modified moskits.

<Kanwa News July 19, 2003> KANWA has confirmed more details about 956EM DDG.

As for the ship-to-ship missile, earlier report said it was the 3M80E with a range of more than 120km. A a variety of sources confirmed to KANWA that 956EM actually employed 3M80MBE, an upgraded version of 3M80E specifically developed for China. It is said that China paid for the designing and upgrading projects. The designer of the missile claims that the maximum range of this missile is up to 200 km, which is what China demanded and eventually accepted. This indicates that the anti-ship attack capability of 956EM is far greater than what the West earlier expected.

The two 956EM DDGs currently being built for the Chinese navy have undergone a series of modifications in the air defense and anti-ship weapon systems. In general, 956EM no longer adopts the 130mm naval gun in the rear. Instead, it is now outfitted with two Kashtan ADGMSs. In addition, a target acquisition radar has been newly installed on the vessel specifically for Kashtan. <Kanwa Moscow>

[MIGleader]

the yahkont is a modified moskit. 200 km is good,but it seems the russinas cant do the 300 km range of the yj-85. are the new sovs hving new radar and air defence missles?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

If so, please explain why all the images showing the new Sovromenyes building for china features launchers for Moskit SSM?

You must be mistaken. You must've seen the 956Es. 956Es use Moskit (Sunburn), while 956EMs use Yakhont.

[tphuang]

the yahkont is a modified moskit. 200 km is good,but it seems the russinas cant do the 300 km range of the yj-85. are the new sovs hving new radar and air defence missles?
hehehe, maybe the Russians will provide more, now that they have seen YJ-83 with their own eyes. I think they might get it upgraded to SA-N-12 from 7? Even 052B has SA-N-12.

[MIGleader]

wait, thew sa-n-12 is the grizzly and the sa-n-7 is gadfly right? the old sovs already have the grizzly like the 52b's.

[Gollevainen]

I have seen pics 8same ones that you, propaply) from Sovs. building for china and all of them field those big quadruple cannisters for Moskit.
Now yakhont is much more smaller missile than moskit and it isent desingned directly from moskit...
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3452/brahmos-rajput.jpg
This from bhramos which is practically an improved yakhont for India.
Those who have wider imagination, can compare the size of the possible yakhont launchers and moskit launchers to the old styx launchers seen also in the pic...

Now, those who claim that 956EMs should field yakhont, can you provide some source that claim so or is it just your own asumptions?

[tphuang]

wait, thew sa-n-12 is the grizzly and the sa-n-7 is gadfly right? the old sovs already have the grizzly like the 52b's.
i don't know, but huitong's website and sinodefense still lists SA-N-7 as the SAM for 956 and I have yet to read an article contrary to that.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I have seen pics 8same ones that you, propaply) from Sovs. building for china and all of them field those big quadruple cannisters for Moskit.
Now yakhont is much more smaller missile than moskit and it isent desingned directly from moskit...
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3452/brahmos-rajput.jpg
This from bhramos which is practically an improved yakhont for India.
Those who have wider imagination, can compare the size of the possible yakhont launchers and moskit launchers to the old styx launchers seen also in the pic...

Now, those who claim that 956EMs should field yakhont, can you provide some source that claim so or is it just your own asumptions?

New Purchases of Kilo Submarines and Sovremenny Destroyers From Russia

On Jan. 3, 2002, Rosoboronexport signed a contract with the Chinese for $1.4 billion for the construction of two Sovremenny-class destroyers for PLA needs. Let's look again at the Rosvoouruzheniye catalog (text is excerpted):

"Sovremenny Class is a Russian class of destroyers designed to engage hostile ships by means of missile attack, and to provide warships and transport ships with protection against ship and air attack. Intended primarily for anti-ship operations, it was designed to complement anti-submarine warfare (ASW) Udaloy destroyers (of a previous generation). The ships have anti-ship, anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and coastal bombardment capability. The ships, with a maximum displacement of 8,480 tons, are similar in size to the U.S. Navy's Aegis-equipped missile cruisers, and are armed with an anti-submarine helicopter, 48 air defense missiles, 8 anti-ship missile launchers, torpedoes, mines, long-range guns and a comprehensive electronic warfare system.

Unit Cost: $425 Million
Build Time: 15 Months" (end of description)

So, why is China paying Russia $700 million per destroyer?

According to the understanding of the authors, the major reasons are as follows:

1. China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) intends to obtain these two destroyers as early as possible – ideally by early 2006. PLA strategists know that the probability of a conflict around Taiwan and/or in the South China Sea – with U.S. forces as the major adversary – is growing, and there is no time to waste. That's why PLAN is ready to spend extra money.

2. These destroyers will be equipped with the very best weapon systems available in Russia.

3. Without doubt, in parallel with the two destroyers constructed in St. Petersburg, the shipyards in Dalian city would master the technology for constructing similar (or even better) vessels.

Let's look for the details of these items.

According to Russia's Interfax agency (June 28), the Severnaya Verf (Northern Wharf) shipyard in Petersburg began building the first of two Sovremenny 956EM Project destroyers for China in June 2002. E and M in the project designation stand for "export" and "modernized." Construction of the second destroyer should start at the end of July. The two destroyers are to be completed and delivered to the customer in early 2006.

The ships were developed by the St. Petersburg-based Severnoye (Northern) Design Bureau. Several Russian shipyards competed for the contract, Baltiysky Zavod (St. Petersburg-based Baltic Shipbuilding Plant) and Severnaya Verf shipyards being the principal competitors. Eventually, the order was placed with Severnaya Verf, which was engaged in building two 956E destroyers for PLAN from 1997 to 2000.

The project 956EM destroyers will boast cutting-edge armament assets. This vessel has been designed for countering hostile surface ships and landing craft (its major duty), countering anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses of combat and transportation ships, providing fire support to landing units, and patrolling and carrying out various missions as part of a formation or separately.

The 956EM destroyer is fitted with advanced missile and artillery assets and torpedo, radar and anti-submarine systems, as well as the Moskit supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Length of the destroyer is 150m, and beam is 17m; it is capable of traveling at a speed of 34 knots (60 km per hour). (end of brief description)

Severnaya Verf, indeed, constructed for China two Sovremenny 956E destroyers in 1997-2000. Both destroyers – by 1997 – were about 40 percent ready. The Russian navy – the initial customer – terminated the order due to lack of funds. Severnaya Verf got the new order for the additional two destroyers, to be constructed from scratch, in terribly heavy competition with Baltiysky Zavod (no room here to describe this New Russian-style thriller).

Remarkably, (a) this time, construction should take place much more rapidly (by early 2006 the two destroyers should start service in Qingdao or Zhanjiang naval seaports) and (b) the 956EM destroyers will be much more advanced than the 956E ones; the 'M' means a lot here. According to Western experts, these destroyers – according to their design, at least – are the naval vessels of the 21st century.

And they are incomparably more advanced than two Luhai-class destroyers, the best and largest Chinese-made naval vessels, whose construction was finished in Dalian in 1997 and 2000, respectively (there is some uncertainty regarding the second destroyer).

According to an article in Moscow-based Novyye Izvestiya newspaper (June 27), China is preparing for the American occupation of the naval base at Cam Ranh, Vietnam, recently abandoned by the Russian navy. That's why, according to the Chinese-Russian contract signed on Jan. 3, 2002, Severnaya Verf must produce two Project 956EM ships for PLAN as early as 2005.

The Chinese were primarily attracted by the Moskit anti-ship strike system with its supersonic missiles, which NATO calls the "aircraft-carrier destroyer." Two 956 E destroyers, received in 1999-2000, increased greatly PLAN's capability regarding conflict with U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups. And there is information that the two new 956EM destroyers, which Severnaya Verf has begun to build, are to be equipped with more improved weapons, namely, Yakhont systems, whose effective range reaches 280 km (as opposed to 100 km for the Moskit missiles).

China's naval strategy is not limited to the struggle over Taiwan. Chinese interests are increasingly shifting south, and the PLAN has been given the mission of defending oil- and gas-rich islands in the South China Sea. (end of article briefs)

Important comment: The Yakhont missile launcher and its anti-ship missile are much more compact than the Moskit (Sunburn) launcher and its missile. That's why it is possible to deploy, on a 956EM destroyer, at least 16 Yakhont systems (up to 24, according to some sources). One 956EM could have the combat potential of two to three 956E destroyers!

As the authors mentioned in the recently published article "Chinese multi-level air-defense network," sometime in April 2002 Russia and China signed a contract to sell two S-300F (RIF) ship-borne anti-aircraft complexes to China for $200 million. Beijing plans to install the RIF complexes, with a 120-km range, on two new-generation missile destroyers to be built in China by 2005.

According to Hong Kong media reports in mid-June, these two destroyers aren't inferior to the Sovremenny 956EM; they will be constructed by "436th plant" (evidently, in Dalian) and use Chinese-made gas-turbine engines of 26,700 kW capacity. Earlier, China had to import these engines from Ukraine; now China is capable of producing them (based on technology from the Ukrainian Zarya Corp.).

There is some speculation (also in the Hong Kong media) that purchasing two 965EM destroyers for $1.4 billion means the delay of the Chinese-made destroyers project. In the authors' opinion, this is absurd. To the contrary, payment of such money to Russia means that China will get every bit of manufacturing technology and use it at its own shipyards.

So, by the beginning of 2006, PLAN could have up to eight comparatively modern missile destroyers: two Luhai, two Sovremenny 956E, two Sovremenny 956EM, and two Chinese-made Sovremenny replicas. This is a great challenge to U.S. aircraft carrier groups.

New-Generation Diesel Electric Submarines

The leading U.S. papers published, in May-June 2002, dozens of reports on a Chinese-Russian contract for PLAN to purchase eight Kilo 636 diesel-electric submarines for $1.6 billion. We'll describe the most remarkable features of this bargain.

1) These submarines are much more advanced than the four Kilo submarines received by PLAN in 1995-98. They are equipped with two new-generation weapon systems:

1. Klub anti-ship cruise missiles with a range up to 200 km; the Klub or 3M54E1 is developed by the Yekaterinburg OKB (Experimental Design Bureau) Novator; no counterpart has been invented in the world. They have three stages: The first two define movement at subsonic speeds, the third goes into operation 20 km from the target at supersonic speed, which guarantees invulnerability from enemy air-defense weapons and destroys the enemy's ship. The Kilo-636 submarine with the Klub system is capable of salvo firing of missiles simultaneously from six torpedo tubes – and not only at surface targets, but also at submarines.
2. The Shkval torpedo, whose speed reaches 100 meters per second. After launch under water, it flies through the air and descends by parachute into the region where the hostile ship was detected and then again travels under water. Under such conditions the commander of the targeted submarine simply cannot perform an anti-torpedo maneuver. Incidentally, the Russian navy has no ships yet with such a weapon. In 2001, China acquired at least 40 Shkval torpedoes from Russia and/or Kazakhstan. It is supposed to use them on "093 project" nuclear submarines also.

2) Just like the Sovremenny 956EM contract, the contract for Kilo submarines caused intense competition among Russian enterprises. This resulted, by early July 2002, in the following: Five submarines will be produced by the Komsomolsk-na-Amure shipbuilding plant (the Khabarovsk region of the Russian Far East), two by the St. Petersburg-based Admiralteisky Verf plant, and one by the Sormovo shipbuilding plant on the Volga river, in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The contract for constructing two submarines will be transferred from the Komsomolsk-na-Amure plant to Northern Machine Building Enterprise (NME) in Severodvinsk city, on the White Sea. That's despite NME having no experience in Kilo submarine construction (in contrast with the other three shipyards), and getting the Kilo submarines from Severodvinsk to China will be very difficult. 3) The authors conclude that, simultaneously with the eight submarines constructed in Russia, at least four submarines of the same kind will be built at China Shipbuilding Industry Group Corp.(SIGC) shipyards in Shanghai, Wuhan or Guangzhou cities. As early as 1997, the Chinese and Russians negotiated for China's purchase of about 10 Kilo submarines in exchange for their manufacturing technology.

In 1999, China finished the construction of a "super-Kilo submarine" – the improved version of China's Song diesel-electric submarine. China already has part of the Kilo construction technology; now SIGC will get the entire technology. 4) The order for eight submarines is distributed between three Russian enterprises, in order to accelerate the project's realization. The Chinese will spare no efforts to get all the submarines by 2006 (despite the contract prescribing project completion by 2007).

Finally, by 2006, PLAN could get an entire fleet of comparatively advanced diesel-electric submarines: three to four Song, four old-generation Kilos, eight new-generation Kilos, and at least four Chinese-made Kilos of the new version. Such a fleet, united with the aforementioned advanced destroyers, could greatly affect the naval balance not only around Taiwan, but in the South China Sea and East China Sea as well.

First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

No information about construction of a Chinese aircraft carrier from scratch is available; however, China now has the Varyag unfinished aircraft carrier.

The latest information about the fate of Varyag could be reduced to the following:

Varyag, after spending 110 days being towed by tugboats through the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea, arrived at Dalian seaport in late March 2002. In April-May, the vessel showed no outward signs of becoming "the world's largest floating casino and hotel" (Macao-based company Agencia Turistica bought Varyag from Ukraine under just this pretext, for $20 million, in 1998).

Heavy security measures bar any civilian access to Varyag at the Dalian shipbuilding plant (which of the two plants is unknown). This has fueled speculation, in the Hong Kong and Taiwan media, that Varyag is being used by PLA for the attempt to build its first operational aircraft carrier.

Varyag is stripped of its armaments, it no longer has the nuclear reactors installed earlier by the Ukrainian company Generating Systems of Crimea. Still, the Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag is 70 percent complete and weighs 33,600 tons.

According to Hong Kong media, it is extremely doubtful that Agencia Turistica will ever turn Varyag into a floating casino. Moreover, this company's owners are closely connected with PLAN. (end of Varyag-related information briefs)

It looks like the probability of Varyag becoming PLAN's first aircraft carrier should be estimated as at least 70 percent. And this also could be accomplished by 2006.

Conclusions

1) The PLA intends to accomplish a major PLAN overhaul by 2006.

2) At that time China will have complete technology for manufacturing advanced submarines and destroyers.

3) The balance of power in East Asia (let alone around Taiwan) would be tilted in favor of China.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/30/141937.shtml

[Gollevainen]

well then again its not parel whit the pics we all can view. The article itself is speculating about it, not giving it as a fact. Also, why on earth china has to aquire three modern SSMs from aviable four marketed by Russia ALONG when they are making two to three models by themselves? Whats the point of fielding two ship classes, all whit different SSM fit? Sure there is more easyer ways to achieve support and maintanance catasthropes?

[Totoro]

Couple of things. All the articles mentioning yakhonts are older than ones citing improved moskits. That newsmax article is from 2002. (newsmax site is a bit unreliable anyway, in my opinion) Kanwa stuff mentioning moskits is from 2003 and 2004.

Google for pics of 956em (make sure its new ones, not articles bout old ones) there's visibile differences between new and old but the containers for missiles ARE the ones for moskits.

Yakhont is not evolved moskit. It's not just size, it's different layout too, different engine, etc. I'm sure yakhont used technology from moskit and improved on it, and i wouldn't be surprised if improved moskit borrows some stuff (like the engine, makign it more efficient thus providing longer range) from the yakhont but those two are different missiles.

All that being said, moskit is by no means a bad missile. It's 30% heavier and slightly faster than yakhont, providing more kinetic energy upon impact, in addition to over 50% bigger warhead. I don't know how much those stats have been changed in improved moskit but weight / speed is probably the same, with perhaps only warhead being smaller but also likely no smaller than yakhont's. (note that i'm only guessing here.) Also, guidance system should benefit most from the refit and modified design, especially since the head of the missile is bigger than yakhonts (which also has to provide for the frontal air intake, unlike moskits side air intakes). I'm again guessing here but i wouldn't be surprised if the improved moskit has better guidance than the yakhont.

[bd popeye]

well then again its not parel whit the pics we all can view. The article itself is speculating about it, not giving it as a fact. Also, why on earth china has to aquire three modern SSMs from aviable four marketed by Russia ALONG when they are making two to three models by themselves? Whats the point of fielding two ship classes, all whit different SSM fit? Sure there is more easyer ways to achieve support and maintanance catasthropes?

Excellent statement Gollevainen. Why have two classes of ships with different SSM? that does not make any sense. In actual operations it makes things difficult,but not impossible, for a navy to work in unison. Conmmonality is a key to sucessful operations.

[Gollevainen]

Well pic speaks (or lies) better than thousand words....

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4849/sov278oq2af.jpg

this was posted by swimmerXC and is supposedly the new sovremennyy for chinese navy. Now is anyone seriosly stating that Yakhonts will be fitted anymore? Also the supposed Kashtan fitting is just rumours as you can see the AK-630s. I have wondered that also, why would china go for Kashtan if it already have two CIWS in production?

[vincelee]

never quote a newsmax article, it's full of blatant bias and false information.

for example, Sov clones? Who's ever heard of Chinese sovs? And they clearly discounted the 4 052 class destroyers.

[sumdud]

No way is the Yakhont and the Moskit alike. The sunburn has 4 side engines, while the Yakhont is more of a wingless Fishbed/Shipwreck minimized with a nose intake.

China produces 2 kinds of CIWS already? I know China has the type 730 and the AK-630 in service, but which other kind of CIWS does China produce? The LW-2000 isn't for the navy.

PS- You don't have to mention newsmax's faults everytime, do you?

[MIGleader]

kashtan is going on them. the missles may not be yahkont, but a 200 km moskit. this is according to stratege center.

it would be difficult to remodel a sov for the type 730, so why try?

china payed an extra 400 mil for those sovs, and they dont pay that for nothing.