Future PLAN orbat discussion

[manqiangrexue]

I should have been clearer that there would need to be multiple Chinese aircraft carriers.

If you need to invest more than 3 carriers to this mission, it's already cooked. What's the plan? Keep making $20B carrier packages with 4K sailors on them that can be killed by a single ASBM to try to stop shipping from the US to Japan??

IRBMs are expensive and in short supply. But the Chinese military does have a lot more munitions options given that all of the Japanese Home Islands are within 1500km of mainland China.

Carriers are more expensive and not expendable. When the option exists to blast all of Japan's ports with missiles, why would you consider doing something so risky and out of our element?

Seaborne shipping is only part of it. If the US can operate bombers and tankers from Alaska, and have a clear route from Alaska to Japan, US bombers can use the Japanese Home Islands as a shield, and launch missiles from there, as the Chinese Air Force wouldn't be operating over hostile landmasses in force.

You can either detect these aircraft in which case you can shoot them down in Asia and over Japan or you can't detect them in which case, even if your carriers aren't all taken out, you still couldn't try to blockade stealth aircraft over the vast expanses of the open sea.

Once again, missiles to take out all air bases in Japan is how to do it. If you want to block shipping from the US to Japan with aircraft carriers, you are talking about dealing with far inferior nations. When China has the power to talk down to the US like some junior country acting out, then we can block them with a carrier and it will be the threat of what happens to them if that carrier is attacked or sanctions violated more than the power of the actual carrier that produces the effect.

We're talking about a hypothetical US-China conflict where the US decides to declare war on China, as China can achieve its objectives without going to war with the USA.

In order to end such a war, there won't be any alternative but for the Chinese Navy to neutralise the 3rd Island Chain.

With missiles. You wanna neutralize Alaska and Hawaii with carriers??? The US would have to have been beaten to pre-surrender WWII Japan state before you can do that to them.

You can look at it as staged objectives:

1st Island Chain
2nd Island Chain
3rd Island Chain (Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/etc)

About 2030, I reckon it should be obvious that China would "win" in the First Island Chain.
About 2035, I reckon it should be obvious for the Second Island Chain.
Then there is the 3rd Island Chain afterwards.

---
From a resourcing perspective, China's economy today is around twice the size of the USA, if you look at the latest price surveys and account for differences in measurement methodology.

So given time, China should be able to build a Navy twice the size, with say 22 aircraft carriers.
And with that increased scale, they should obtain 5-10% better availability along with a 10-20% cost reduction, because they are buying and operating twice as many carriers.

Bu they won't do that, because those resources are far better-used on other equipment. Eventually, to put the final nail in American global power, China will build a significant aircraft carrier fleet. But because their use is very limited and they are considered glass jaws in high intensity peer conflict, China will focus more on technologies that risk less to do more damage at least until the US is definitively supplanted.

America is very badly overextended and overinvested economically in a navy that is structurally incorrect to fight a modern high intensity peer level war. China is not going to take their numbers and just multiply them by true PPP to see what we can should build. We don't copy other people's homework and accept all their flaws with it.

 

[sndef888]

Is there any news at all of a 052D replacement?

had been hoping for a long time to see a 8000ish ton 052F with 80 vls but seems all is quiet for the past year or so

 

[AndrewS]

If you need to invest more than 3 carriers to this mission, it's already cooked. What's the plan? Keep making $20B carrier packages with 4K sailors on them that can be killed by a single ASBM to try to stop shipping from the US to Japan??

As I already said before, seaborne shipping is only part of the reason.
The objective is to stop bombers and tankers (operating from Alaska) from being able to reach launch points over Japan, and launch missiles at mainland China.

And as I've pointed out, the US only has hypersonic missiles with a 13kg warhead, so a single hit won't sink a carrier.

And it is beneficial (from a cost perspective) for China to launch SM-6s to shoot down all incoming hypersonic missiles.

Carriers are more expensive and not expendable. When the option exists to blast all of Japan's ports with missiles, why would you consider doing something so risky and out of our element?

Again, seaborne shipping is only part of the reason

You can either detect these aircraft in which case you can shoot them down in Asia and over Japan or you can't detect them in which case, even if your carriers aren't all taken out, you still couldn't try to blockade stealth aircraft over the vast expanses of the open sea.

You can go after the tanker aircraft which are refueling the stealth bombers transiting from Alaska to Japan.

Once again, missiles to take out all air bases in Japan is how to do it. If you want to block shipping from the US to Japan with aircraft carriers, you are talking about dealing with far inferior nations. When China has the power to talk down to the US like some junior country acting out, then we can block them with a carrier and it will be the threat of what happens to them if that carrier is attacked or sanctions violated more than the power of the actual carrier that produces the effect.

Again, shipping is only part of the reason. For targets on the Japanese Home Islands, it is more efficient to use land-based aircraft and missiles.

With missiles. You wanna neutralize Alaska and Hawaii with carriers??? The US would have to have been beaten to pre-surrender WWII Japan state before you can do that to them.

That is the logical next step after the Second Island Chain has been secured.

Bu they won't do that, because those resources are far better-used on other equipment. Eventually, to put the final nail in American global power, China will build a significant aircraft carrier fleet. But because their use is very limited and they are considered glass jaws in high intensity peer conflict, China will focus more on technologies that risk less to do more damage at least until the US is definitively supplanted.

America is very badly overextended and overinvested economically in a navy that is structurally incorrect to fight a modern high intensity peer level war. China is not going to take their numbers and just multiply them by true PPP to see what we can should build. We don't copy other people's homework and accept all their flaws with it.

Air power is fundamental to power projection. I simply don't see any alternative to aircraft carriers, albeit operating long-range aircraft to mitigate risk.

 

[manqiangrexue]

As I already said before, seaborne shipping is only part of the reason.
The objective is to stop bombers and tankers (operating from Alaska) from being able to reach launch points over Japan, and launch missiles at mainland China.

And as I already said before, you can either detect them and shoot them down in Asia or you can't and you can't intercept them over the ocean either. Except the latter requires you send ships and thousands of men to wait and potentially get killed.

And as I've pointed out, the US only has hypersonic missiles with a 13kg warhead, so a single hit won't sink a carrier.

And as I've pointed out, America is so badly behind on large ship killers because it hasn't needed to build them. If China develops a large carrier fleet, America's ship-killing missiles with take off. It's a lot cheaper and easier to build bigger ship-killing missiles than it is to build 22 carriers and their complements and to train their sailors.

And it is beneficial (from a cost perspective) for China to launch SM-6s to shoot down all incoming hypersonic missiles.

It's not beneficial from a people's lives perspective to put a ship out thousands of miles from home to see if they can intercept all the missiles coming down on them. I'm rather happy that American carriers have to play this game in Asia with China.

Again, seaborne shipping is only part of the reason

Again, I addressed everything else too.

You can go after the tanker aircraft which are refueling the stealth bombers transiting from Alaska to Japan.

1. If your carriers haven't already been torpedo'd missile struck to death, you can try.
2. B-1, B-2, B-21 range doesn't require a refuel between Alaska and Japan, even round trip is possible. Conformal fuel tanks are also relatively easy to develop to extend range. Give the US the reason to develop them and they will be added.

Again, shipping is only part of the reason.

Again, I addressed everything else too.

For targets on the Japanese Home Islands, it is more efficient to use land-based aircraft and missiles.

Yes, not aircraft carriers; they are not very useful except against very weak foe.

That is the logical next step after the Second Island Chain has been secured.

The next step is achieved with missiles.

Air power is fundamental to power projection. I simply don't see any alternative to aircraft carriers, albeit operating long-range aircraft to mitigate risk.

We're going in circles. I agree that aircraft carriers are needed for power projection, but I'm arguing against your assertion that they are needed to fight defensively against Japan/USA attacking China.

 

[AndrewS]

And as I already said before, you can either detect them and shoot them down in Asia or you can't and you can't intercept them over the ocean either. Except the latter requires you send ships and thousands of men to wait and potentially get killed.

And as I've pointed out, America is so badly behind on large ship killers because it hasn't needed to build them. If China develops a large carrier fleet, America's ship-killing missiles with take off. It's a lot cheaper and easier to build bigger ship-killing missiles than it is to build 22 carriers and their complements and to train their sailors.

With mass production, the US *hopes* to reduce the cost of a hypersonic missile from $40 Mn to $15Mn
But it is still *cheaper* for the Chinese Navy to launch two SM-6 to shoot down.

However, I doubt the US military-industrial complex can actually get the cost down, produce these missiles in volume, nor field the platforms to launch enough of them. In comparison, we have a situation where China already has about 250 DF-26 Launchers

---

In addition, the US missile only has a 13kg warhead, which doesn't qualify as a ship-killer.
So a true US hypersonic ship-killer missile would be a lot bigger and more expensive.

To sink an aircraft carrier, I think it would take at least 10 heavy warheads.
But having said that, a mission-kill on a carrier is a lot easier.

Again, I addressed everything else too.

1. If your carriers haven't already been torpedo'd missile struck to death, you can try.
2. B-1, B-2, B-21 range doesn't require a refuel between Alaska and Japan, even round trip is possible. Conformal fuel tanks are also relatively easy to develop to extend range. Give the US the reason to develop them and they will be added.

It's a 10,000km roundtrip from Elmendorf to Hokkaido, leaving barely any buffer for emergencies for a B-2/B-21. But from Hokkaido, 1000km cruise missiles can't actually hit anything.
So these bombers would need tankers.

---

Fighter jets can use conformal fuel tanks because they are already designed to carry heavy external payloads.

But stealth bombers aren't designed for this, so developing conformal fuel tanks for a large flying wing bomber is going to require a structural redesign of the bomber. That is not an easy task.

The next step is achieved with missiles.

Look at the distances from China:

Alaska: 5000km (overflying Russia)
Hawaii: 8000km

Missiles with that range are going to be very expensive and in short-supply.

Even today, China has only fielded about 250 DF-26 launchers with 500 missiles, with a 3000-4000km range.
That is not enough for a sustained missile campaign

We're going in circles. I agree that aircraft carriers are needed for power projection, but I'm arguing against your assertion that they are needed to fight defensively against Japan/USA attacking China.

China staying on the defensive is a losing proposition, as eventually the enemy will concentrate enough forces to break through to critical targets. That is what will happen if China allows bases in the Third Island Chain to act as secure staging points.

But to neutralise those bases on a continuous basis, you need to be able to use lower-cost (and therefore shorter-range) munitions. That requires the launch platforms (ships/carriers/aircraft) to get pretty close.

Chinese long-range stealth bombers will be a part of this, but for sustained power projection against the Third Island Chain, I don't see any alternative to a large fleet of Chinese aircraft carriers.

---

Let's take a notional Chinese Navy which is twice the size of the US Navy.
So call it 22 fleet carriers, with 22 Type-076 drone carriers, 120+ SSNs, etc etc

It would be feasible to form a fleet comprising 8 fleet carriers, 8 drone carriers, 60 SSNs, etc
But where could the US launch enough long-range hypersonic missiles from?

This fleet could reach Hawaii or Alaska, and destroy the bomber threat at those airbases.

 

[wuguanhui]

Lol. If we have neutralised all threats at the 2IC, I honestly don't care about the 3IC. I certainly have no interest in building 44 carriers just to bomb Hawaii.

 

[AndrewS]

Lol. If we have neutralised all threats at the 2IC, I honestly don't care about the 3IC. I certainly have no interest in building 44 carriers just to bomb Hawaii.

The alternative is sit behind the 2IC, and then allow Hawaii to be used to attack China.