Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

Originally Posted by MIGleader

Beaurocracy is slow. mr. bush certainly would not be able to mobilize u.s forces in less than a week.

Ummm....No. Within hours, ships would be moving to the area. Special Forces troops would move even quicker. The US had SEALs and CIA paramilitaries in Afghanistan within a day of 9-11. So no, the US would not take a week to get mobilized. It is always mobilized. The US could have B-1s, B-52s and B-2s firing cruise missles at the Fujian coast even quicker. The US has a carrier in Japan, in case you haven't noticed. It would be there pretty fast. Assuming this confrontation is taking place in a couple of years, and the US has withdrawn from Iraq and has not gotten embroiled in a fight with Iran, then the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendelton would be mobilizing quickly. (I'm not saying that they would arrive in Guam or Taiwan in a matter of days, I am saying that the Expeditionary Force would be ready to go in a few days.) The US did go through the Cold War, so we know how to be ready to go in a matter of days or hours.

Originally Posted by MIGleader

buld it up STEADILY.
Beaurocracy is slow. mr. bush certainly would not be able to mobilize u.s forces in less than a week.

Yes, but the logistics of gathering the ships and material for the actual invasion would not be able to be hidden. The aircraft necessary for air coverage, their training missions and preparation. The fuel and armaments for them being massed, the supplies for the soldiers to be used...etc., etc.

All of this, and most importantly the massing of the right types of naval vessels, would be noticed weeks in advance...the trends would be obvious to the analysts who are watching via satellite.

The US is already forward deploying ships and aircraft...they can get more Air Force aircraft there in a matter of sa couple of days...any ships not already forward deployed would be a different matter...but I would not be surprised to see two US carriers and their strike groups forward deployed in the Western Pacific in the not so distant future.

It's a chess game right now.

Well as long as we're on the chess game analogy...

Most of the time you win in chess because your opponent made an error, as opposed to an unstoppable brilliant play on your side... In addition, all beginning factors are equal, you all have eight pawns, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, a King and a Queen, not so much between the factions in a potential USN vs PLAN conflict... but I digress.

Anyway, agree with the previous posts regarding the difficulty of massing forces and resources without being too obvious about it.

Originally Posted by MIGleader

Beaurocracy is slow. mr. bush certainly would not be able to mobilize u.s forces in less than a week.

I think this statement hit the nail on the head!

You see.....

Originally Posted by Sea Dog

I know for a fact that USN readiness is alot higher than what you describe. [...]

What I'm trying to say is that you probably have 4 carriers out in the Pacific today. You probably have 1 or 2 Pacific side carriers in port. Maybe one of them in a maintenance cycle...maybe both. And you have at least 2 somewhere near the Indian Ocean. I'm still standing by the fact that 5 carriers groups of varying densities will be ready to conduct operations to support the mission as a total force within 72 hours. Plus we're not even counting the amount of SSN's that are currently out there already also. There are some today that would be able to conduct ASuW, ASW and Deep Strike Missions within hours if called to do it today. And yes, USAF readiness is equally high. They could conduct war operations today if called to do it within a few hours.

..... it's not that you're wrong Sea Dog. You paint a very impressive picture of the US Armed Forces as being this all capable, super professional, efficient fighting machine. I'm sure IN THEORY this is what is supposed to happen.

But let's face it. Look at all the screw ups the US has experienced since 9/11 (including 9/11 itself). I mean, I don't wanna get into politics here, but the reality of the US Armed Forces is that they make MISTAKES, sometimes BIG MISTAKES. Mistakes that cost many unnecessary American lives....

So I'm just pointing out, what your talking about is a purely theoretical US Armed Forces, which as real life has demonstrated, is really different from the way things work.

So applied to Migleader's example: theoretically, the US should be able to detect a build up. But they've made bigger goof ups before, and they can definitely miss this one too.

Originally Posted by Roger604

it's not that you're wrong Sea Dog. You paint a very impressive picture of the US Armed Forces as being this all capable, super professional, efficient fighting machine. I'm sure IN THEORY this is what is supposed to happen.

But let's face it. Look at all the screw ups the US has experienced since 9/11 (including 9/11 itself).

So I'm just pointing out, what your talking about is a purely theoretical US Armed Forces, which as real life has demonstrated, is really different from the way things work.

So applied to Migleader's example: theoretically, the US should be able to detect a build up. But they've made bigger goof ups before, and they can definitely miss this one too.

Hmmm. When it has actually come to conducting military ops in a battlespace, the US does pretty good, I'd say. But then again, the US has a ton of experience in these areas. And yes, in warfare there are always mistakes. The US has learned alot from theirs. I can only imagine what mistakes China would make in this scenario seeing as how they have absolutely no experience whatsoever. Most of their personnel haven't seen the fog of war, nor do they spend the same quality of time training as USN types see. So I'm willing to bet they are prime to make way more mistakes than the seasoned US forces will make. Probably more than double. As a matter of fact, I know they would flinch big time in this type of environment as it will be a totally unknown realm for them.

That's why I'm saying, on the scale of things, the US has the decisive advantages here. Chinese forces would flinch if this scenario came about. Mark my words. And I'm sorry, but it would be impossible to miss a build up of this type. This isn't making a mistake....it's falling asleep at the wheel. Right now, the USA is wide awake in this spectrum.

Originally Posted by Sea Dog

Mark my words. And I'm sorry, but it would be impossible to miss a build up of this type. This isn't making a mistake....it's falling asleep at the wheel. Right now, the USA is wide awake in this spectrum.

We should definately take bets on the outcome of the vaunted US-China war.

Getting back on topic, I think that China should develop a force that is capable of quick response, composed of its best DDGs, the Varyag, when its ready, and some subs. This force would be used to gain experience as well as respond to the sort of threats China will be sure to face as a growing power. (I'm talking about things like a threat to the oil supply and other things that are unexpected, not the US-China war that is the main topic of this forum most of the time.).

Originally Posted by SampanViking

The demands upon; and therefore the size of, China's navy will grow naturally in response to its real and legitimate trade interests

.

That's what I've been trying to say ever since I started that "Can China fight Small Wars" thread. It is much more realistic that China will fight wars, based on economic interests, like that than any huge battle over Taiwan.

Wow, its interesting to see that two of you, sea dog and popeye, disagree bout the number of CVBGs US could deploy on short notice. Considering you've both served in the USN.

I was not assuming all carriers are sitting in their ports, wrote so in my previous post. But i've read some data dating from 2004 (still post 9/11) which indicated that USN does not have more than 1-2 carriers deployed within week's worth of travel to china at any one time. (that does not take into account the yokosuka one, of course)

At any given moment, almost 50% of the carrier force is either on the way to its next deployment, or on the way home. So, while technically 5-6 carriers around the world are at sea, only 3 or so are are fully supplied for a fight. And they will not all be deployed close to china. And that's something that's perfectly in accordance to my assesment of 1-2 carriers diverting from their original deployment plan to get to the area quickly. Other carriers too would divert, but after they get replenished which would take some additional time.

Sure, when iraq was being attacked there were more in indian ocean, but in the case of no action anywhere i still stay steady with my previous assesment. Which according to popeye is too generous for the USN.

So, popeye, what is your assesment? how many could USN muster at following time intervals: 36 hours, 72 hours, a week, two weeks, a month? lets assume a carrier is homeported in guam.

SSNs i wasn't talking about. I'm too lazy to do research on those right now but i do assume a fair number of those would be deployed near china fairly quickly, more so than with the carriers.

I also wasn't talking about china's mobilization plans. Of course the time frame i used for the carriers is one that starts from the decision to send them to the area. (i guess one could add some hours for the decision itself, after the info on enemy movements has been recieved)

No one can amass troops for such huge invasion in a matter of hours. Nor can they hide such troop movements. Similar issue concerns ships too. But i don't believe that is in china's interest, to give the enemy so much warning time. I believe china would strike with cruise and ballistic missiles, accompanied by an air strike with whatever forces they already have in the area, so no warning coming from redeployment of further forces comes. Luckily for china, over the decades they already have based quite a few of their planes within striking reach.

In the following hours and days, more planes would be deployed in the theater, as the air superiority war rages. PLAN operations would also begin, and gradually increase but aircraft operations would be be paramount - both PLAAF and PLAN's. Perhaps on the 2nd or 3rd day, if permitted, some limited number of troops could actually start trying to land on taiwan. Full blown invasion could take more and its questionable how that'd fare if USN has enough forces mustered by that time.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Wow, its interesting to see that two of you, sea dog and popeye, disagree bout the number of CVBGs US could deploy on short notice. Considering you've both served in the USN.

Popeye really is the expert on what it takes to get a carrier going. This is because he was actually a carrier sailor. If I'm not mistaken, he was also a Chief. So I'm not going to dispute Popeye's assesments on what it would take to get a carrier prepped for deployment. What Popeye says carries alot of weight. From where I speak, I do know from recent times, operational readiness is much higher. While I've never been aboard a carrier and I don't know too much on how they go about preparing for a deployment, I do know that there are a number of them operating in the Pacific at all times and can be "turned" for operational service rapidly. I know I was only an Ops officer onboard one of them tin cans, but I still know that alot of naval elements are out there, and have the ability to do combat turns when necessary. I'm telling you for sure, that USN would have the ability to strike PLAN today....maybe not with 5 CSG's however. But they would come, trust me.

The numbers and amount of days to deploy a total force of a decisive number of CSG's is based on alot of factors. I don't believe me and Popeye really disagree on these points. I give best case scenario, while I believe he was coming at it from a more conservative point of view. Popeye, correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, USN would still be able to put these asssets in place to do alot of damage. I guess the timing is something none of us can truly foresee accurately.

But leaving this part of the topic and getting to the point of the thread "Number of ships PLAN must have"....It really depends on what they want to do and how they perceive the threat to their interests. The number isn't as important as types, quality, and how they're organized into a coherent force structure. If we talk numbers, I'd like to know how many 052B's, Sovremenny's, Yuans, etc. they intend on fielding as a specific class.

Originally Posted by Sea Dog

The numbers and amount of days to deploy a total force of a decisive number of CSG's is based on alot of factors. I don't believe me and Popeye really disagree on these points. I give best case scenario, while I believe he was coming at it from a more conservative point of view. Popeye, correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, USN would still be able to put these asssets in place to do alot of damage. I guess the timing is something none of us can truly foresee accurately.

Sea dog and popeye, I would not be surprised to see two carriers forward deployed to the western pacific in the next few years. The USN is already forward deploying more and more assets like SSNs and conducting more and more operations there. Just a thought...what do you guys think?

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

Ummm....No. Within hours, ships would be moving to the area. Special Forces troops would move even quicker. The US had SEALs and CIA paramilitaries in Afghanistan within a day of 9-11. So no, the US would not take a week to get mobilized. It is always mobilized. The US could have B-1s, B-52s and B-2s firing cruise missles at the Fujian coast even quicker. The US has a carrier in Japan, in case you haven't noticed. It would be there pretty fast. Assuming this confrontation is taking place in a couple of years, and the US has withdrawn from Iraq and has not gotten embroiled in a fight with Iran, then the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendelton would be mobilizing quickly. (I'm not saying that they would arrive in Guam or Taiwan in a matter of days, I am saying that the Expeditionary Force would be ready to go in a few days.) The US did go through the Cold War, so we know how to be ready to go in a matter of days or hours.

Paragraph deleted
Knock off the political retoric MigLeader!
bd popeye moderator

Seadog, Its not so smart to assume your opponent will simply flinch out on you when it comes to real conflict. Especially if your assumptions have no backing except some stuff you read on the internet. But whats the point replying to you? Im obviously on your ignore list.

Besides, when was the last time the u.s navy actually fought someone with a real navy? Pirates dont count, firing cruise missles at countries dont count, and operation praying mantis doesnt count either. If thats the case, we need to scroll all the way back to WW2.

Yes, but the logistics of gathering the ships and material for the actual invasion would not be able to be hidden. The aircraft necessary for air coverage, their training missions and preparation. The fuel and armaments for them being massed, the supplies for the soldiers to be used...etc., etc.

Personally, i dont think the invasion would happen overnight. China would obviously try to get some degree of sea control, as well as air supremecy. If no ships are immediately deployed, the u.s has no choice but to launch hornets and try to attack the Chinese planes.

And Btw seadog, when was the last time the U.s fought someone with a real airforce? Vietnam? I dont think hussain or khadafi count.

Seadog, reagardless of experience, the bigger you "machine", the bigger the chances it will malfunctions. Im not saying China will not mistakes, as it almost certainly will. But can the u.s take advantage of these mistakes?

You guys are not asking the right question.

WHy is it incumbent upon the "pro-US" side to prove that US forces can be sent to the area at a given time frame?

I highly doubt the PLA's capability to invade Taiwan in a week.
1.) Decapitation strike won't work - US tried that against IRaq and Serbia with much more acurate weaponry.

2.) Taiwanese forces are very capable and will have relative numerical superiority in the straights. All of China's forces can't be allocated at Taiwan. Doing so, you risk giving the US an open avenue to open a second front.

Here it most up to date information of where the US carriers are:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Base on this data: 7 carriers can be at Taiwan within a week:
Nimitz, Kitty Hawk, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, Vinson

And 3 more within 2 weeks: Eisenhower and Reagan

Theses ships can be ressuplied and armed underway via underway replinishment.

Besides, when was the last time the u.s navy actually fought someone with a real navy? Pirates dont count, firing cruise missles at countries dont count, and operation praying mantis doesnt count either. If thats the case, we need to scroll all the way back to WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

The questing you should asked is, when was the last time CHina fought someone with 1st rate navy? How many PLAN sailors had experience shooting an anti-ship missiles under real combat conditions. HAve they ever tried to save a sinking ship?

When was the last time the U.s fought someone with a real airforce? Vietnam? I dont think hussain or khadafi count.

When was the last time PLAAF fought an air war?

Serbia, Operation Desrt Storm, and IRaqi freedom provided very good experience regarding Command and COntrol of large amount of sorties, development of new strike doctrine, etc.

How many PLAAF officers ever conducted and offensive air sweep under comnat conditions? How about attacking a well hidden target with pin point accuracy while being shot at? NONE!!!

MIg you are asking the wrong question...

I looked at your link. Where does it say 7 carriers would be ready in a week?!

It just says that there are 5 carriers on the ready, 4 post-deployed, and 3 in maintenance.

Besides, I think the USN is prone to underestimating the fact that they make mistakes, and things just don't pan out they way they want to. If they hope to be somewhere within a week, some problem will probably come up that delays them for another week. The US Army and Marines are a lot less "in control" nowadays than they want to be, and I think the Navy is no different.

the questing you should asked is, when was the last time CHina fought someone with 1st rate navy? How many PLAN sailors had experience shooting an anti-ship missiles under real combat conditions. HAve they ever tried to save a sinking ship?

China sank a few vietnamese warships in the 80s. Vietnam was not a first rate navy, but neither was china. so the difficulty of the battle is farily even.

tut...when you hit a dead end, admit it. dont try to turn the question around.

When was the last time PLAAF fought an air war?

Serbia, Operation Desrt Storm, and IRaqi freedom provided very good experience regarding Command and COntrol of large amount of sorties, development of new strike doctrine, etc.

How many PLAAF officers ever conducted and offensive air sweep under comnat conditions? How about attacking a well hidden target with pin point accuracy while being shot at? NONE!!!

Im sure the u.s must gain a large amount of experience bombing saddams palaces and afghan mountains. These are tactical targets. Most of iraqs tactical targets were taken out by tomahawks.

Strike this, strike that...since when did the u.s ever fight soemone with an airforce that foguht back? I hope your not thinking the chiense will simply bury their aircraft when war comes.

Im not claiming china has much experience with this, but neither does the u.s!

Originally Posted by IDonT

I highly doubt the PLA's capability to invade Taiwan in a week.
1.) Decapitation strike won't work - US tried that against IRaq and Serbia with much more acurate weaponry.

Of course taiwan can't be invaded within a week with a meaningful force. Air supremacy achieved, yes. Sea control (not supremacy) achieved, yes. As foor ground troops -at best some scattered footholds where airborne troops have landed around the island and are struggling to keep their positions.

Decapitation rarely works, and its silly to rely on that. I don't know about others, but i don't have any illusions about one big missile strike that would neutralize whole of taiwan.

Originally Posted by IDonT

2.) Taiwanese forces are very capable and will have relative numerical superiority in the straights. All of China's forces can't be allocated at Taiwan. Doing so, you risk giving the US an open avenue to open a second front.

Numerical superiority on land - absolutely. Numerical superiority at sea - not so much. Maybe in the opening day, but after that at best they'll be on par with china. Numerical superiority in air will be completely on china's side. That is in the opening days of any possible invasion. With air superiority over such a small theater, taiwan's navy will struggle to do any serious offensive manouvers. As time passes, situation will get just worse for taiwan, until the point US starts its attack. Providing it waits to assemble a decent force - US strike would probably neutralize most of PLAN and deny PLAAF of offensive operations over taiwan. Any chinese troops that would be fighting on taiwan itself would effectively be cut off and would be forced to surrender in a short time frame.

Originally Posted by IDonT

Here it most up to date information of where the US carriers are:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Base on this data: 7 carriers can be at Taiwan within a week:
Nimitz, Kitty Hawk, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman, Vinson

And 3 more within 2 weeks: Eisenhower and Reagan

Theses ships can be ressuplied and armed underway via underway replinishment.

Thanks for the link, its very helpful but it really doesn't provide the info to support the idea of 7 carriers within a week and 3 more within 2 weeks.

Nimitz and kitty hawk are within range and readyness to be deployed within a week. Truman, kennedy and vinson are in the atlantic, all 3 at various stages of readyness being in post deployment cycle. A minimum of 2 weeks would be needed for them to get to taiwain. And that is assuming they're all early in their post deployment cycle. Lincoln is also in post deployment cycle but is on western US coast, so it could get to taiwan in some 9-10 days. Same goes for reagan, which is training in pre-deployment cycle at western coast. Roosevelt is also in the atlantic but ready to sail within a day or two.Eisenhower is training in the atlantic and would also need at least two weeks. remaining carriers are under maintenance and would require month or months of preparation before they can be used.

So, if US had needed to respond in sep 2005, it could have sent 1 carrier within two days, another one under a week, two more in some 9-10 days, maybe 3 more in 2 weeks time. (ones that didn't get too far into their postdeployment cycle) Then two remaining ones after couple of more weeks/a month. Rest of them would require a couple of months. A pretty good result if you ask me. No other navy in the world could send such force half way round the world on such short notice.