Future PLAN orbat discussion

[Racek49]

The numbers are as follows: The US can realistically deploy two thirds of the 6, that is 4. Against that, China would have to deploy 4 of the 6 (3 large and two Kuznetsov or other combinations. Which is quite realistic. We can probably agree on that.
Sometime about 3 years ago I heard a report here that a Chinese official mentioned the need for 5 aircraft carriers. Well, that would correspond to my rather simple reasoning.
I apologize if I expressed myself badly, my English is not very good. But I really wasn't talking about magic. Greetings, my friend.

 

[defenceman]

Hi,
in terms of number of ACC, China has to develop around 9/10 and availability wise at least 7/8 now I’m not comparing of vs to USA but one should think of a clash between the the two China is not having a regional or global power beside its ACCs to counter USA on the other hand we have UK, France and in Chinese region Japan to aide USA by his side, so whatever numbers China have they all suppose to be ready to be pushed out in near future face off hopefully not any in near future.
thank you

 

[Andy1974]

Did anyone consider how many carriers China needs based on a defensive A2/AS strategy?

E.g. China might want one carrier group, each to deny entry from

• Java Sea
• Sulu Sea
• Philippine Sea

That would be 3 carriers to completely cover all entry to the SCS, for example.

 

[Confusionism]

In my humble and private opinion, the US can deploy a maximum of half of its aircraft carriers against China in the event of a conflict, because it has to deal with the defense of the Atlantic coast, the Middle East and other major engagements. China would then need about 6 full-fledged aircraft carriers for full-fledged defense, so after the Type 004 it should build 3 more (if we count both older Kuznetsovs under certain conditions, of course) equal to 1 US ship.
In reality, it is nonsense to attack an equal opponent. So the real need is even lower in terms of scale.
And on top of that, the tactical advantage of its own coast and the air power of the ground forces, right? So there is a bunch of US military contractors behind those 9 ships, right? And I include considerations about a possible attack by Chinese ships on the US Pacific fleet, even 15 of them would not be enough for that, if we take into account the necessary logistics and the strength of the US Air Force.

There is no absolute constraints requiring the US to maintain forces in other theaters at the same time. It can concentrate all its forces in the short term—in most cases, aircraft carriers serve merely as a show of force rather than the sole solution; even if the war drags on, the US may, if necessary, relinquish relatively unimportant regions to adversaries posing lesser threats in order to secure dominance in the Indo-Pacific theater.

 

[Racek49]

Neexistují žádná absolutní omezení, která by vyžadovala, aby USA udržovaly síly v jiných oblastech války současně. USA mohou v krátkodobém horizontu soustředit všechny své síly – ve většině případů slouží letadlové lodě pouze jako demonstrace síly, nikoli jako jediné řešení; i když se válka protáhne, USA mohou v případě potřeby přenechat relativně nedůležité oblasti protivníkům představujícím menší hrozbu, aby si zajistily dominanci v indicko-pacifickém prostoru.

Well, for every successful attack planning you have to create a corresponding superiority in ships and logistics. At least 3:2, better 2:1. Of course, the specific situation can be created differently. Which is of course another matter. For operations near Taiwan, the proximity of mainland China is an advantage, which makes defense easier. You cannot deploy all the ships for an attack, see the previous comment about servicing and it is also necessary to have a reserve at home for possible defense in case of an unfavorable course of events. Etc. etc. And the allies? their desire to get involved in the conflict has decreased significantly. These are relatively small countries and a few dozen nuclear strikes will remove them from the world map. France will hesitate a lot, England for a while too. They don't mind China much, they especially don't like Russia.
But I think that professionals in the staffs of the great powers take everything into account and plan accordingly. That is, to ensure a high probability of successful defense, or the same for an attack. Currently, the USA still has a great superiority. But no one knows how aircraft carriers will stand up to modern anti-ship weapons.
Well, I think we've strayed far enough, so I'll stop discussing this and leave it to the professionals. I only reached the rank of senior lieutenant in the military, but I'm just an amateur.

 

[manqiangrexue]

In my humble and private opinion, the US can deploy a maximum of half of its aircraft carriers against China in the event of a conflict, because it has to deal with the defense of the Atlantic coast, the Middle East and other major engagements. China would then need about 6 full-fledged aircraft carriers for full-fledged defense, so after the Type 004 it should build 3 more (if we count both older Kuznetsovs under certain conditions, of course) equal to 1 US ship.
In reality, it is nonsense to attack an equal opponent. So the real need is even lower in terms of scale.
And on top of that, the tactical advantage of its own coast and the air power of the ground forces, right? So there is a bunch of US military contractors behind those 9 ships, right? And I include considerations about a possible attack by Chinese ships on the US Pacific fleet, even 15 of them would not be enough for that, if we take into account the necessary logistics and the strength of the US Air Force.

We don't deploy carriers to slug it out with other carriers; that's WWII stuff. China developed the finest fleet of ASBMs in the world by far so we don't have to do that; a couple of missiles worth $10M a piece and they lost a $10B carrier with a $10B airwing/equipment with 4K sailors.

 

[Michael90]

Okay. I will make a rather unconventional point here. C leaders have been very restrained/patient and successful is steering China way from many provoked conflicts by the US/Japan etc. Which is very very smart of China, since China is by far the worlds largest trading nation today so China will lose more than anybody from a major war affecting her growth and prosperity . So the leadership has to be much more restrained in their actions than others. So I will say Chinese leaders are very smart and shrewd enough to understand this(only those emotional naive people seem to think they are passive and should react forcefully to such provocations or even military conflict ).
The only point I will say Chinese leaders could have done better is in the military sphere. I think China should have been spending at least 3% of her GDP on defence . Not for a war, but to prevent a war. The fact that some western analysts and military planners still talk about and even imagine a direct war with China shows that the CCP has failed to really achieve some form of deterrent against such adventures and thinking . It mean they still don’t see China as strong enough to not think of a possibility of going to war with them.

By contrast the case, when you look at the dynamic between the US and the Soviet Union . No American or western country even wanted to think about a war between the US/west and the Soviet Union . Nobody even wanted to imagine it and it was out of the question (especially considering all the nukes an delivery system of MAD thy possess), reason there was actually many polices of detente and strategic talks and understanding about this between both sides. Since nobody ever wanted to even think of such a thing, much less say it. The Soviets for all their mistakes succeeded in achieving real deterrence but they failed in the economic aspect as the economic system itself was flawed and bound to fail in the long run(that’s another topic altogether ) .

So I think maybe Chinese leaders don’t want to rock the boat and create anxiousness among their rivals by arming to such an extent and expanding their nuclear arsenal to such a degree. However I think that’s a mistake , since it creates a possibility of miscalculation vis a vis their rivals who might believe a war with China can be won .

it’s better to arm to deter war than even having a 1% possibility of fighting it (and the huge massive economic and human losses that will entail).

 

[vincent]

Okay. I will make a rather unconventional point here. C leaders have been very restrained/patient and successful is steering China way from many provoked conflicts by the US/Japan etc. Which is very very smart of China, since China is by far the worlds largest trading nation today so China will lose more than anybody from a major war affecting her growth and prosperity . So the leadership has to be much more restrained in their actions than others. So I will say Chinese leaders are very smart and shrewd enough to understand this(only those emotional naive people seem to think they are passive and should react forcefully to such provocations or even military conflict ).

I guess you haven’t followed the news in the last few years. The US and its vassals are confiscating Chinese assets not only in their countries, they also got other poor countries to do it too. Plus Western countries are sabotaging Chinese businesses in third world countries as well. Those actions are affecting China’ growth and prosperity.
I am highly doubtful Chinese leadership will allow this to go on much longer.

 

[Andy1974]

Okay. I will make a rather unconventional point here. C leaders have been very restrained/patient and successful is steering China way from many provoked conflicts by the US/Japan etc. Which is very very smart of China, since China is by far the worlds largest trading nation today so China will lose more than anybody from a major war affecting her growth and prosperity . So the leadership has to be much more restrained in their actions than others. So I will say Chinese leaders are very smart and shrewd enough to understand this(only those emotional naive people seem to think they are passive and should react forcefully to such provocations or even military conflict ).
The only point I will say Chinese leaders could have done better is in the military sphere. I think China should have been spending at least 3% of her GDP on defence . Not for a war, but to prevent a war. The fact that some western analysts and military planners still talk about and even imagine a direct war with China shows that the CCP has failed to really achieve some form of deterrent against such adventures and thinking . It mean they still don’t see China as strong enough to not think of a possibility of going to war with them.

By contrast the case, when you look at the dynamic between the US and the Soviet Union . No American or western country even wanted to think about a war between the US/west and the Soviet Union . Nobody even wanted to imagine it and it was out of the question (especially considering all the nukes an delivery system of MAD thy possess), reason there was actually many polices of detente and strategic talks and understanding about this between both sides. Since nobody ever wanted to even think of such a thing, much less say it. The Soviets for all their mistakes succeeded in achieving real deterrence but they failed in the economic aspect as the economic system itself was flawed and bound to fail in the long run(that’s another topic altogether ) .

So I think maybe Chinese leaders don’t want to rock the boat and create anxiousness among their rivals by arming to such an extent and expanding their nuclear arsenal to such a degree. However I think that’s a mistake , since it creates a possibility of miscalculation vis a vis their rivals who might believe a war with China can be won .

it’s better to arm to deter war than even having a 1% possibility of fighting it (and the huge massive economic and human losses that will entail).

If they spent 3% China would now have 1000 J-16’s and J-10’s, instead they will get 1000 J-20’s and J-35’s for much less than 2%. That’s compound interest of GDP.

 

[AndrewS]

Okay. I will make a rather unconventional point here. C leaders have been very restrained/patient and successful is steering China way from many provoked conflicts by the US/Japan etc. Which is very very smart of China, since China is by far the worlds largest trading nation today so China will lose more than anybody from a major war affecting her growth and prosperity . So the leadership has to be much more restrained in their actions than others. So I will say Chinese leaders are very smart and shrewd enough to understand this(only those emotional naive people seem to think they are passive and should react forcefully to such provocations or even military conflict ).
The only point I will say Chinese leaders could have done better is in the military sphere. I think China should have been spending at least 3% of her GDP on defence . Not for a war, but to prevent a war. The fact that some western analysts and military planners still talk about and even imagine a direct war with China shows that the CCP has failed to really achieve some form of deterrent against such adventures and thinking . It mean they still don’t see China as strong enough to not think of a possibility of going to war with them.

By contrast the case, when you look at the dynamic between the US and the Soviet Union . No American or western country even wanted to think about a war between the US/west and the Soviet Union . Nobody even wanted to imagine it and it was out of the question (especially considering all the nukes an delivery system of MAD thy possess), reason there was actually many polices of detente and strategic talks and understanding about this between both sides. Since nobody ever wanted to even think of such a thing, much less say it. The Soviets for all their mistakes succeeded in achieving real deterrence but they failed in the economic aspect as the economic system itself was flawed and bound to fail in the long run(that’s another topic altogether ) .

So I think maybe Chinese leaders don’t want to rock the boat and create anxiousness among their rivals by arming to such an extent and expanding their nuclear arsenal to such a degree. However I think that’s a mistake , since it creates a possibility of miscalculation vis a vis their rivals who might believe a war with China can be won .

it’s better to arm to deter war than even having a 1% possibility of fighting it (and the huge massive economic and human losses that will entail).

Consider how in terms of major Air Force and Naval platforms, every year, China is already buying "twice (or more)" as the US.
Given enough time, that translates into a Navy and Air Force twice the size.

---

Also, consider what should the China military buy with an extra 1% of GDP ($200 Billion)?