Future PLAN carrier operations

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

  1. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,377
    Likes Received:
    15,614
    Considering I wrote 2035-2040 where I wrote 6-8 I thought it was fairly obvious that I meant 6 by 2035 and 8 by 2040.
    The number of carriers they would be able to deploy would of course be a result of the deployment pattern they chose during peacetime -- which again, I described as being seeking to maximize the number they could surge during a high intensity conflict. The number that would be available would obviously vary if it was 2035 (6) or 2040 (8).

    The ford class is unique as a first of class ship, so a 4 year delay between commissioning and deployment is not unreasonable. For ships beyond the lead ship in classes with larger runs like the Nimitz class or Kitty Hawk class, deploying 1-2 years after commissioning is not abnormal.


    So what makes you think my projection was to "assume a specific outcome based on fiat" rather than a "function of facts and projections applied to make a reasonable determination of outcome"?

    Because reading it here, all I can see is you saying "I think I'm being reasonable and logical whereas you are being unreasonable and illogical"?


    Please don't write "facts do matter, not assumptions" as if you are somehow uniquely being analytical and level headed here.

    For example, when you describe aim points in the Iraqi war, not only is the scale of each target set different (which you do correctly mention -- Guam is much smaller than Iraq) -- however the nature of each target is also much different and the mission that is sought to achieve is different:
    Guam is not a country with large civilian populations and scattered military and civilian infrastructure across its territory which need to be identified and struck.
    Guam also isn't a territory that China needs to strike at every single military related installation either.
    The most highly ranked target there would of course be Anderson AFB followed by the naval base. Striking those locations to produce even transient mission kills would produce useful effects when done in conjunction with other joint forces such as naval forces.


    Considering we are talking about a projection out to 2035-2040, we are both making projections for the future, or as you write it above -- "making a reasonable determination of outcome".

    You are merely applying a different set of functions to a different set of facts to make a different determination of outcome.
    You are free to believe your functions and facts are reasonable and make a case for your own projection

    But frankly the way you so casually dismissed my projection and therefore by extension dismissing the underlying functions and facts I used for my own projection (or even assuming I did not use functions and facts to project a future at all) is rather presumptuous.



    As I wrote in my previous post, I think we have very different views of what the future military balance may be like. So much, that I also think it makes any particular discussion about the underlying functions and set of facts we are each using for our projections to be useless.

    I think I've been quite reasonable in my replies to you so far, but when almost half of your word count is devoted to espousing how reasonable and logical you think you are and how unreasonable and illogical you think I am, it really doesn't leave much latitude for constructive discussion and makes me wonder if it is even worth responding to you in the first place.
     
  2. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    In effect you are claiming that by 2035 that there will be 6 carriers ready for military deployment and by 2040, 8 of them.

    What I am asking for is show me how you will get to 6 carriers not just built but trained and ready for military deployment by 2035. So far you are insisting that it is reasonable to make such claims but have not shown any projection as to how you actually get to 6 by 2035.

    The Ford class is unique because it is the lead ship and so will be 003 or any Chinese carrier that is nuclear powered. It would be unreasonable to assume that there will be no development issues for lead ship and consequently a longer time period to get them to deployment capable status.

    I was referring to your insistence that your claims are reasonable even though they are unsubstantiated in any shape or form. I had asked at every opportunity that you provide your underlying basis to support your claims which you have yet to do so. Unsubstantiated claims grounded on an insistence that your claim is reasonable is what by fiat means i.e simply by brute force

    .... because facts do matter.

    The facts are there are a lot more aim points than generally appreciated in any conflict. It is the reason why the Europeans ran out of PGMs during the Libya air campaign within the first week. It also mean that China does not have near enough long range strike weapons to achieve the desire effects on Guam that would neutralize its threat against any Chinese carrier group. It is not just airfields as they can be easily recovered again and again. There are the mobile LRASM that can be moved around its 74000 acres of land. By my estimate you would need at least 16,000 PGMs to cover the whole island and up to 100,000 based on probability of arrival.

    I can also assume that just 2 B-1s carrying 40 LRASM each would be sufficient to eliminate an entire Chinese CBG including its escorts. Making assumption is easy. Such an assumption is reasonable because the LRASM is VLO, is able to operate with ESM to avoid detection, and can cooperatively attack in swarm. The Chinese escorts would have no chance at all.

    I am not casually dismissing your views. I think it is commendable that you are making an attempt to postulate a certain view. I am just asking that your articulate a defense of your views based on whatever underlying analyses that you have in support of it and not defend it based on an argument that it is reasonable because you insist it is reasonable.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  3. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    843
    I do not dispute that the 003 will take some time to ready, however, we should not base PLAN deployment time on USN deployment time but on PLAN deployment time. Based on how long the 003 takes, we can determine how much time the 004 needs.

    You fail to take into account that a lion’s share of aim points during the Iraqi war were civilian infrastructure (oil well, roads etc.) or ground troop equipment such as BMPs and tanks.

    The whole US fleet is projected to be 300 ships by 2030. That’s 300 aim points. If we include air bases and launchers in the region, a generous assumption might yield 10 000-20 000 aim points. But that infrastructure is useless without USN support.

    China does not need to bomb US civilians, nor does it need to chase after individual US army vehicles on Guam/Japan, after dispatching most of the US navy, the PLA could just ignore US ground forces and steam straight towards midway and Hawaii to snipe USN remnants and supply points.

    Furthermore, once aerial superiority is seized, the 10 000s of aim points will be vulnerable to having their fuel depots bombed out, at which point 100s of Abrams and Bradleys become glorified bunkers, bunkers which ships will just sail around.

    Fanboying over the LRASM is just plain dumb. Newsflash, China’s current missiles are stealthy, have ECM and can coordinate too, and have been doing it for nearly a decade. US range matching China’s missiles for the first time in some time is ofc a cause of concern and would give them significantly more tactical flexibility, but LRASM isn’t even in full service yet.

    Tl:dr there might be 10 000s of aim points (definitely not 100 000s, unless part of China’s war effort involves changing Guam’s terrain), but just 200-300 aim points representing USN ships would decide the outcome of the war, and even today, China has many times more in just sophisticated munitions, to say nothing of dumber PGMs. Running out of bullets before the other side runs out of soldiers is definitely not a concern.
     
  4. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Yes, this would definitely be a news flash for me. Which of China's current missiles are "stealthy, have ECM and can coordinate too, and have been doing for nearly a decade"? I thought I knew most or all of China's current ASCM lineup, but you must have access to more information. Please share.
     
  5. azesus
    Offline

    azesus Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    138
    Stealth missiles can be rather easily defeated from the top such as EAW or satellite, they have to be guide by platform if from a B-1 or if link nodes like F-35 so platform can be threatened or jammed, stealth missile is different than stealth plane where plane can stay far out of detection range a missile have to throw themselves up close and personnel and be detected at closer radar range and infrared, its slow subsonic, too expansive for cost/benefit saturation attack at 5 millions each the newer better ones close to 10 mil and its really difficult for the platform to gather together in the first place for saturation, China thought about it use modify HQ-16 as base for such missile but both China and US can readily defeated, US SM-6 is perfect for such a job on the US side, hypersonic is correct tech tree for missile
     
  6. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    22,606
    Likes Received:
    27,283
  7. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Your aimpoint estimates are way off again

    Guam has a population some 35x smaller than your Libya conparison

    Geographically, Guam is only 541km2, which is some 3200x smaller in terms of land area.

    Indeed, Guam looks like a box which is roughly 20km wide and 50km long.

    It simply will be difficult to hide vehicles on Guam. And if the US is basing LRASMs on Guam, they only have the range for local defence. That begs the question, why aren't they being based on the First Island Chain instead?

    The implication is that the First Island Chain has been ceded to China. That means China has 'won' as the core objectives are here.

    And if we take your requirement of 100000 weapons for Libya and account for the population difference with Guam, that comes to only 3000 weapons which is a feasible number. And remember that Libya was primarily about a land war and involved large armies with a many small targets. China will be satisfied with merely suppressing Guam and letting it wither on the vine. Guam is some 3000km from China's core objectives in the First Island Chain, so there are few platforms which can make that trip.

    Also, LRASM should still be detectable by UHF band radars on Chinese destroyers and a presumably a future Carrier AWACs aircraft

    Plus a B-1B has to get within 1000km for a LRASM launch. That is a dicey proposition given the B-1B has a huge radar signature and Fighter Cap is expected to operate 2000km from a Chinese carrier or the numerous Chinese airbases.

    Come to think about it, US doctrine is that F-22s will operate from Guam all the way to mainland China and Taiwan some 3000km away.

    Once the J-20 fighters and Y-20 tankers are in service, they should be available in much larger numbers because Guam is only 1 base whilst there are a lot more Chinese air bases available. So what is stopping the chinese air force from operating all the way to Guam?
     
  8. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,377
    Likes Received:
    15,614
    For the purposes of my projection, I would envision the lead 003 being launched around 2021, entering service around 2023 and being fully combat capable by 2026, with a second 003 being launched two years later after the first in 2023, entering service around 2025 and being fully combat capable before 2028.
    Lead 004 (CVN) I would project as being launched around 2025-2026, entering service in around 2029, being combat capable by 2033. A second 004 would be launched two years after the first in 2027, entering service in 2030, being combat capable by 2034.

    That, combined with the two STOBAR carriers, takes us to six total combat capable in service carriers by 2035. Of course the number that would be deployable at any one time would be a function of the peacetime deployment pattern -- but as I wrote previously, the goal would be to deploy them during peacetime in a manner that focuses on readiness and having surge capability for as many of the in-service fleet as possible in event of a high intensity westpac war.


    Considering now how much of a divergence in views we have about the future military balance, asking me to provide my "underlying basis" is the equivalent of asking me to articulate my entire vision of the future military balance.

    I think I've provided you more detailed answers when appropriate and/or practical (such as your question about how I envision w



    ... as if to suggest the facts you choose to sample and your choice of function is the only reasnonable one.


    I think we have different visions of what would be a "desired effect" in regards to Guam. For me, the primary target that Guam poses is the air base; that would be the primary target that would be struck and require re-attack as they are repaired. The rest of the infrastructure on the island and any military forces there would be secondary targets and more appropriate for carrier based aviation and/or LACMs from escorts to strike.

    You keep on mentioning nationwide scale air campaigns designed to annhilate an entire nation's air force and air defenses and striking wide ground based military targets as well, the scale of which is inappropriate to compare with the strike campaign that would be used against Guam. The munitions that used against one particular airfield and one particular area of air defenses for the Iraq or Libya campaigns would provide a closer approximation to Guam.

    You can absolutely make the assumption that 2 B-1s carrying 40 LRASMs would be sufficient to eliminate an entire Chinese CBG. And I would disagree with it. And that disagreement would likely be a result of differences in belief and assumption of respective military capability in terms of quality and quantity.



    As I wrote above and in previous posts, there is such a wide divergence in the views of future military balance that we have, such that it's near impossible for me to answer a question like "what are your underlying assumptions" because that is literally asking me to explain the entire projection of what I envision the future military balance to look like.

    I think I've been more than reasonable in indulging your questions given how unreasonably broad they have been, and when you've narrowed to scope more I've also responded with accordingly more detail as well.


    The manner in which you've been continuously writing about how my projection was founded on unreasonable assumptions or implying that my projection was not based on facts, can only be perceived by me to be presumptuous.
    That's understandable, because as I wrote above, it just reflects the big difference in what we envision the future military balance to be like. But if you want to have a constructive discussion then consider dropping the "holier than thou" attitude towards our respective assumptions for the future military balance.
     
    #88 Bltizo, Sep 14, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2019
    Shaolian, weig2000 and ZeEa5KPul like this.
  9. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    843
    Most of the current lineup were built with visibility in mind, this isn’t the 1970s where stealth is an unknown concept. The burden of proof is on saying the LRASM is stealthy enough to matter. Same goes for ECM.

    IIRC China has touted coordination between missiles in export expos, this is hardly cutting edge either.
     
  10. ZeEa5KPul
    Offline

    ZeEa5KPul Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    659
    Your schedule posits around two years between launches (the time it took from 002's assembly to launch). Are you assuming that only one yard is building carriers?
     
Loading...

Share This Page