Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
Intrepid
Major
They have two carriers soon.
China needs 6 carriers just to contend for security in its immediate periphery up to the 1st island chain. While long distance carrier operations are a nice to have they are by no means necessary for China in an overall peaceful environment nor are they viable for China in an overall hostile environment, for all the scenarios in between other ship types and other non-military means will meet their needs better.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Well I do like a reasonable and intelligent discussion from time to time. But if you are mistaking what I post for trolling, or if you feel that way then there is little I can do on that matter.
Not true Viktor...The USN since 1981 has had carrier with their strike groups transiting the Suez Canal and operating in the Gulf of Aden and in the Persian Gulf.
By the way...I do not think Viktor is trolling at all.
China doesn't need any carriers for the 1st island chain as all of it is well within reach of land-based aircraft, especially now with bases deep inside the SCS. What China needs carriers for is the second island chain, the rest of the Western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. And some day the rest of the world.
The 1st island chain is itself a significant landmass with a great wall of bases that can facilitate opposing land based air and naval, including carrier, forces to contend the waters within the 1st island chain and attack into mainland China. In order for China to contend these waters and prevent attacks into the mainland it needs carriers that can take the fight to the 1st island chain's great wall of bases including the ability to meaningfully flank them.
vesicles
Colonel
Yes, a CBG packs a whole lot of firepower, especially like the USN. However, the USN can pack even more powerful punches when it has access to land-based assets. Using landed-based systems is also more cost effective.
Similarly, it would be much more efficient for China to use its land-based assets when fighting near the first island chain. Because how expensive, complex and dangerous to operate the CBGs, the carriers are second options for wealthy nations when they can’t find land-based assets. I’m sure even the USN would have preferred land systems if given a choice.
Land based assets also mean land based targets and the homeland being hit. Having mobile forward assets not on home territory that can strike the opposing homeland more readily and divert opposing forces away from attacking your homeland is well worth the cost if one can afford it. It also innately offers much increased deterrence at the same time against the opposition choosing the military option in the first place. This is exactly why some countries such as the US maintain expansive expeditionary forces and forward bases at great cost.