Future PLAN carrier operations

Discussion in 'Navy' started by AndrewS, Sep 6, 2019.

  1. Bltizo
    Online

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,377
    Likes Received:
    15,614
    This is simply semantics now.

    Sure -- whether it "will" or "can" is an assumption just like whether it "won't" or "cannot" are also assumptions.

    Just like how any statement or argument is predicated on assumptions in general.



    I don't know how much more I can explain my "underlying basis" than I already have.

    The above really makes me agree with weig2000's post previously, that the fact you ask for a further "underlying basis" of my so-called "assumption" suggests that you believe the very idea of a future Chinese CSG having the ability to "operate up to the second island chain and beyond with even a fighting chance" (quoting weig2000) is such a difficult to comprehend prospect that it requires explanation or justification.

    If that is the case then I don't think I can provide to you an explanation of the "underlying basis" because it can only mean we have fundamentally different views of what the balance of overall military power is like such that there would be a major divergence in opinion over something like a future PLAN of the medium to long term future being able to wage a conflict in the 2nd island chain or beyond to seek and contest air and sea control.
     
    #61 Bltizo, Sep 9, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  2. FriedRiceNSpice
    Offline

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    304
    Well, then there is the assumption that US CBG can even make it close enough to second island chain to even contest the air space and sea. That is yet another premise that Bltizo's projection hinges on, yet nobody else is raising a fuss about it.
     
  3. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    I think US CSGs can be expected to pass Guam in the Second Island Chain.

    Guam is a large fixed airbase which is some 3000km from mainland China
    That is beyond the range of the vast majority of weapons and aircraft launched from mainland China.
    Plus Guam can be resupplied and repaired, so it should be able to conduct air operations, despite Chinese suppression efforts

    But US CSGs venturing to the 1500km midpoint between mainland China and Guam would be at great risk.
    At that distance mainland China airbases should be able to maintain an air superiority CAP against anything Guam + US carriers can launch

    As for a small Chinese CSG force, I think they can definitely be expected to operate at 1200km from mainland China, because they will be safely under the umbrella of long-range CAP from mainland airbases.
    But Chinese CSGs will also generate their own CAP and ISR patrols which can reach another 1800km all the way to Guam.

    That will extend the distance that US carriers have to operate from, and push US carriers almost all the way back to Guam itself.

    --

    If there is only say 2 Chinese carriers available, this probably isn't enough power to reduce Guam plus the US carriers nearby.
    That would limit Chinese CSGs to occasional raids against Guam and hunting for US CSGs.

    But looking forward to 2040 like CSBA does, I reckon there will be a minimum of 6 carriers + 80 AEGIS destroyers in the Chinese Navy.
    Such a force could credibly defeat Guam plus the supporting US CSGs, and then operate past the Second Island Chain.
    With maritime superiority, I guess the next objective would be to operate in the open ocean and blockade the sea/air traffic to Japan.



    NB.
    But such a small Chinese Navy is premised on China seeing a benign security environment and deciding to stick with the current modest levels of military spending.

    A China that actually felt really threatened would likely double military spending from 2% to near 4% of GDP literally overnight.
    But 4% is simply what Russia and the USA routinely spent over the past 2 decades.
     
  4. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    I think you are forgetting that 6 carriers means only 1 or sometimes 2 will be immediately available at any one time (whereas 11 carriers means about 3 will be immediately available at any one time), and "80" Aegis-type destroyers means only 20-30 will be available at one time.
     
  5. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    You're talking about leisurely peacetime deployments, with a global operating profile.

    That simply will not happen, as the Chinese navy will still mainly be focused on the Western Pacific rather than distant seas.

    In a 2040 Western Pacific scenario with a low-estimate Chinese Navy, there would probably be:

    a) 1-2 carriers on active deployment with another 3+ ready to surge at short notice.
    b) Say 25 destroyers on active deployment with another 40+ ready to surge at very short notice.

    So I imagine the Chinese Navy could permanently operate a CSG comprised of the following off the coast of Guam
    a) 2x carriers
    b) Say 10x Type-52D Destroyers
    c) Say 10x Type-55 Destroyers/Cruisers

    That's a total of 1760 VLS cells, and I imagine at least 800 would be loaded with land-attack or anti-ship cruise missiles, which could all be launched within 2minutes.

    Then there would be another similar CSG resulting from a surge, which would arrive within 7days.

    ---
    Again, remember this is my low-end estimate for the Chinese Navy.
    The higher-end estimate is about double the size.
     
    antiterror13 and Yodello like this.
  6. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    At least we can finally agree it is an assumption.

    I did not ask for a "further underlying basis" simply because there was no underlying basis that you shared to begin with. Whatever that is with weigh2000 and you is strictly between the two of you. Please don't drag me into that,

    Fundamentally the difference is I view positions grounded on a cocktail of assumptions, conjectures, and inferences as highly questionable.

    I view questionable the following ;
    1)That Chinese carrier development and production will continue successfully when 003 is still early days. In other words there is no proven product to speak of. It is an assumption that there will be sufficient numbers built by 2035-40 to prevail against USN current inventory of 11. This is notwithstanding the long history of USN experience and practices operating with multi carriers. This is not even counting the "Lightning" carriers of 10.
    2)That Chinese carrier aviation will prevail against F-35Cs that will dominate the USN carrier wing by that period considering that no known development and associated capabilities of what PLAN can deliver by that period. It is both a quality and quantity consideration that is not favorable to the Chinese side
    3)That Chinese carrier aviation will develop to the extend that it can prevail against a much larger pool of experience USN carrier aviators considering the problem it is facing with lack of J-15 numbers and no naval trainer.as a starting base
    4)The Chinese carriers will prevail against Guam and the logistics footprint that arise by operating far from base.

    and yet the underlying assumption is simply somehow the Chinese CSG will achieve sea and air control regardless :
     
  7. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Uhh, no. If you are talking about the USN, there are no "leisurely peacetime deployments". Speaking of surging, I'm sure how much you understand of the concept or where you pulled the number "7days" out of, but surging requires a fair bit of time. You can't just call up a naval base and tell them to send over that carrier within the week. As far as the USN goes, surging a carrier requires up to a MONTH advance notice, which I suspect is not what you had in mind when you said " very short notice". Surging the next carrier after that requires up to 3 months notice.

    Here's a quote from RAND:
    "In a given cycle, a ship may be deployed, in maintenance, or not deployed but able to provide additional forward presence as requested by theater commanders (i.e., able to “surge”). An aircraft carrier's surge readiness depends on the carrier and crew's level of training. When training for deployment is complete, the carrier can be surged within 30 days. Aircraft carriers undergoing basic training immediately after a maintenance period are at a lower readiness level and normally can be surged in 90 days."

    In other words, a carrier is either deployed, in maintenance, in training, or in readiness, with readiness (training complete) meaning "can surge within 30 days", and training meaning "can surge within 90 days". The current 32-month operating cycle of a USN carrier consists of approximately 20% deployed, 40% readiness, 15% training, and 25% maintenance, though in real life the actual numbers can vary somewhat. In addition at least one carrier will always be in drydock undergoing MLU and not part of the operating cycle at all. So for a force of 6 carriers, something like 1 and sometimes 2 carriers will be actively deployed, 2 or sometimes 1 carrier will be surgeable within 30 days, 1 will be in training (surgeable within 90 days), 1 will be in maintenance (not surgeable), and 1 will be in drydock (not surgeable).
     
    Jura likes this.
  8. Bltizo
    Online

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,377
    Likes Received:
    15,614
    Only in so much as that assumptions underlie everything we speak of.


    If you take those four points and replace the use of the word "will" with the word "can," then that would be consistent with my beliefs which "underlie" my conops, yes.
    I didn't think explanation to such a degree would be necessary because it would have been reasonable to interpret such information without my clarification.

    Given my conops is talking about a force that would be existing by the mid 2030s to 2040 I think that is a fair timeline.

    Edit: I'll go into a bit more detail on I am back at a computer but yes I do have answers for each of your points.
     
    #68 Bltizo, Sep 10, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    22,606
    Likes Received:
    27,283
    Brumby you seem not to understand what Bitzo has been describing which I think is something like the USN Plan Orange in the interwar period that, in several simple words, was a strategy how to counter Japanese moves in the Pacific, first of all against then-US Philippines, by seeking a decisive battle fought by battleships arriving from Pearl, and planning accordingly (emphasis on battleship squadrons), decades in advance; well it was proposed by a gentleman named Rogers (clearly influenced by Alfred Thayer Mahan) at the time when there were no aircraft carriers

    LOL! in the meantime noticed Trump fired Bolton, so I'll be brief:

    did Japanese attack? yes
    did the USN proceed with the Orange? obviously not, as Pearl had been preempted
    I mean only God knows the future, but a navy has to have its doctrine

    hope it helps the discussion here
     
  10. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    By all accounts, the US did proceed with War Plan Orange in terms of overall strategy.
    Although carriers and submarines played a much more important role than was previously wargamed.
     
Loading...

Share This Page