Future PLAN orbat discussion

[AndrewS]

I'm sorry but this notion is unrealistic.

In context of a high intensity conflict, the idea of a PLAN carrier being able to reach and operate in the northern pacific to begin with is a huge demand (as it would necessitate the neutralization of basically all air and naval forces in the western pacific to begin with first of all, as well as the massive logistics tail it would necessitate) -- however the US would also easily detect and track such a force operating in the region and be considered a very high value target.

The US would not merely be using one airbase in Alaska to annihilate said PLAN CSG -- not only would they greatly reinforce Alaska with air power and IADS and ISR and missile forces, but they would be using land bases and naval forces from most of the continental US (long range bombers, fighters, tankers, SSNs and CSGs of their own) to carry out a joint strike mission against said PLAN force.





There are multiple ways to strike at a CSG.
Also, just because the US barely has any long range hypersonics right now doesn't mean that will continue to be the case. Within 5-10 years, that could greatly change.




You are correct, in that carriers are still vital in deploying organic fixed wing military aviation in the open ocean.
And I actually agree that carriers can still be relevant in a high intensity conflict between two superpowers -- in certain circumstances.

However, the viability of such a force (and the size of such a force) greatly depends on the specific supporting friendly forces, the maritime geographic environment, the logistics tail (and vulnerability of said logistics tail) to support your CSG, and how the preceding warfighting actions have occurred to enable (or deprive) your CSG from operating in the way you want.


There are certainly some conflict scenarios where the PLA having a sizeable carrier force would be vital in contesting certain specific wartime objectives (especially ones at greater ranges like beyond 2IC or central pacific distances), but the ability to contest those objectives in the first place requires the PLA to be able to decisively and massively win a westpac conflict to begin with to provide that freedom of movement.

If the US concentrates aircraft in Alaska, then it becomes a very inviting target because it is isolated. I would note that Alaska and Hawaii are about the same distance from mainland China. So if the Chinese military is concerned about Hawaii, the same rationale applies to Alaska.

---

Yes, the Chinese Navy undertaking operations against Alaska (or Hawaii) would be a huge undertaking. And one of last resort, given the risks.

But remember the old, official PPP numbers indicate the Chinese economy is about one-third larger than the US. If I look at the latest price surveys, along with normalising the measurement methodology for housing and black market activities, it does look like the Chinese economy is now twice the size.

Given the state of world affairs with the US as violent, predatory and unpredictable imperial power, I do expect China to build a much larger Navy than the US

 

[Dante80]

I don't think China will ever reach Carrier parity with the US, for two reasons. None of which have to do with the ability or capacity to do it.

1. It is not needed for its defense.
2. China is not planning OR going to replace US as an imperialistic superpower with global military projection and policing in its goals.

I'm assuming that they will want to keep at least carrier on patrol in each fleet at all times, and have a surge capacity of at least 5. This means a total force of 6 to 8 carriers max imo.

I don't believe we will ever see more from them.

 

[wuguanhui]

I'm very skeptical about the survivability of super carriers against determined adversaries with advanced submarines or hypersonic missiles. I think 1 or 2 XXL super sized carriers to mog the Americans and bait them into a building even bigger carriers is sufficient.

 

[mack8]

Meanwhile, given the launch of the 09X which from what can be understood from chineze netizens is a revolutionary boat, what this signifies for the long awaited 096 SSBN, will it be still a relatively conventional 095 level tech sub, or they will push ahead to incorporate 09X level tech? A fast, stealthy SSBN would have survivability taken to new levels.

 

[AndrewS]

Meanwhile, given the launch of the 09X which from what can be understood from chineze netizens is a revolutionary boat, what this signifies for the long awaited 096 SSBN, will it be still a relatively conventional 095 level tech sub, or they will push ahead to incorporate 09X level tech? A fast, stealthy SSBN would have survivability taken to new levels.

An SSBN is supposed to spend most of its time at the slowest speed possible.

My guess is that making a sailless Type-096 SSBN would be too risky and unnecessary

 

[Phead128]

1. It is not needed for its defense.

The recent US blockade of Straits of Hormuz, where China imports 35-45% of it's oil, I am not sure what PLAN could have done without parity of nuclear carriers. Hypothetically, US can assemble 11 carrier group + 9 helicopter carriers to straddle SLOC in Indian ocean (or a choke point) and cut off China's vital supplies. What can China do without nuclear carrier parity in a blue water confrontation in Indian ocean? What's the point of building carrier fleet if not parity count to defeat USN in Indian ocean?

 

[mack8]

An SSBN is supposed to spend most of its time at the slowest speed possible.

My guess is that making a sailless Type-096 SSBN would be too risky and unnecessary

How about a situation when the SSBN needs to run away from a pursuing enemy SSN? Of course this is needed only if the unthinkable happens, but if things got to that point the SSBN needs every ounce of advantage it can get to survive long enough to launch it's SLBMs.

 

[vincent]

The recent US blockade of Straits of Hormuz, where China imports 35-45% of it's oil, I am not sure what PLAN could have done without parity of nuclear carriers. Hypothetically, US can assemble 11 carrier group + 9 helicopter carriers to straddle SLOC in Indian ocean (or a choke point) and cut off China's vital supplies. What can China do without nuclear carrier parity in a blue water confrontation in Indian ocean? What's the point of building carrier fleet if not parity count to defeat USN in Indian ocean?

Never dance to your enemy’s tunes. If the US and its vassals blockade the Indian Ocean, assemble your fleet and start an island hopping campaign towards the CONUS. 攻其必救。

 

[vincent]

How about a situation when the SSBN needs to run away from a pursuing enemy SSN? Of course this is needed only if the unthinkable happens, but if things got to that point the SSBN needs every ounce of advantage it can get to survive long enough to launch it's SLBMs.

SSBN can never outrun fast attack SSNs.

 

[manqiangrexue]

A Chinese aircraft carrier between Japan and Alaska would have multiple functions:

1. Prevent cargo aircraft from reaching Japan
2. Prevent ships reaching Japan
3. Prevent airborne refuelling aircraft from enabling bombers to overfly Japan, and then launch missiles.

There is only a single, isolated airbase located in Alaska, so a Chinese aircraft carrier force could have enough aircraft to conduct strikes against that airbase.

A Chinese aircraft carrier? China already has 3. Do you think we can prevent shipping from America to Japan or win a fight against Elmendorf by sailing there?

Remember that the US barely has any long-range hypersonic missiles.

Remember China has a wonderful advantage against the US in that if they wish to use their carriers against us, they are betting >$20B in assets and 4-5,000 personel per ship against $10M missiles. I'm very very comfortable with those odds and wagers. I don't want to flip that bet at all. It takes many more resources to build a massive carrier fleet than to develop missiles to sink it.

Now, I would agree that carriers have become less useful than previously, but in the open ocean, where there are no land airbases, the carrier are still the only way to have persistent air power. That enables ISR or air superiority over any targets, and then you have options as to how to hit those targets.

Carriers are known as glass jaws for good reason. As I said, they can be very very useful against weaker opponents or in limited power competitions with peers, but they are dangerously vulnerable against another superpower.