Future PLAN orbat discussion

[Phead128]

China's carrier count is a political decision. If China thinks it can deter US over Taiwan with a combination of diplomacy, economic levers, first island chain dominance, then a minor carrier force is sufficient. On other hand, if China thinks it wants to evict US entirely from Indo-Pacific via direct blue water confrontation, then carrier parity is non-negotiable. US can sit carriers outside AShBM missile ranges along the Indian ocean sealanes to choke Chinese SLOC and without the number of carriers to confront in Indian ocean, it would be GG, esp. since US has Diego Garcia and countless naval bases in Indian ocean, whereas China has none except Djoubouti. Not even Myanmar naval bases, not even Gwadar naval base, come on.

So far, my guess is, China just wants to take it's time, not in rush for war. However, just as China "suddenly" has 500 J-20's seemingly overnight, this political decision switch can see China pumping out carriers like sausage very very quickly. "China speed" is scary esp. with a larger economy and superior shipbuilding capacity.

 

[AndrewS]

China's carrier count is a political decision. If China thinks it can deter US over Taiwan with a combination of diplomacy, economic levers, first island chain dominance, then a minor carrier force is sufficient. On other hand, if China thinks it wants to evict US entirely from Indo-Pacific via direct blue water confrontation, then carrier parity is non-negotiable. US can sit carriers outside AShBM missile ranges along the Indian ocean sealanes to choke Chinese SLOC and without the number of carriers to confront in Indian ocean, it would be GG, esp. since US has Diego Garcia and countless naval bases in Indian ocean, whereas China has none except Djoubouti. Not even Myanmar naval bases, not even Gwadar naval base, come on.

So far, my guess is, China just wants to take it's time, not in rush for war. However, just as China "suddenly" has 500 J-20's seemingly overnight, this political decision switch can see China pumping out carriers like sausage very very quickly. "China speed" is scary esp. with a larger economy and superior shipbuilding capacity.

Carrier production is not just a political decision at this time.

If you want to mass produce carriers, it helps immensely to have a mature aircraft carrier design to work with, and the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is still under construction.

---

And if you want to carriers for blue-water operations, it also helps to have modern, competitive SSNs.
We've only just seen the first boats of a new SSN class(es) being launched, so ideally, they need some time to mature before mass production.

 

[manqiangrexue]

The definition of hypersonic speed is Mach 5.
An Iskander SRBM with a 500km range already reaches Mach 6

This is the level of logic you're capable of? You claim that all missiles traveling over 1,000km are hypersonic so I show you evidence that you are wrong by pointing out the subsonic 1,600km+ Tomahawk and your answer is to show me that hypersonic missiles exist?

Given the 1000km+ distance between Israel and Iran, that means large missiles were all travelling at hypersonic speeds.

There is literally no logical connection to draw this obviously incorrect conclusion. Do you know how many missiles including the Tomahawk can go over 1,000km but never reach hypersonic or even supersonic speeds?? Look it up!

As for Iranian missiles, in the past 12 months, Iran fired 500+650 missiles.
But there were only 150 Arrow interceptors, plus whatever the US used. And standard practice is 2 interceptors launched for each incoming missile.

It's not that interceptors had no chance. It's that the number of incoming missiles has overwhelmed the available interceptors.

You have clearly never seen a video of a hypersonic missile touching down in Israel. The interceptors might as well have been out back having a smoke given how slow and how far they were to intercepting the lightning bolt coming down.

If interceptors don't work, then why has China developed and then deployed both the HQ-19 and HQ-29?

And why is the US continuing to ramp up production of SM-3 and SM-6 if they don't work? Surely the US has gathered enough data over the past 12 months, given how many they have launched.

Interceptors work better the slower and the more predictable the missile. Just because you have no reliable way to intercept a maneuvering hypersonic missile doesn't mean you stop building interceptors and make yourself a sitting duck against all supersonic and subsonic missiles too. Iran can't afford to fire all hypersonic missiles; they are very expensive and the majority of Iran's missiles are definitely not hypersonic. When one of them is used, it's a big deal.

I think you are under a misconception that all ballistic missiles that achieve a hypersonic speed at some point in their flight envelop are considered hypersonic missiles. They are not. That technology has been around for decades. When people say "hypersonic missile" in a modern military setting, talking about missiles that are almost impossible to intercept, they are not referring to that. They are referring to a relatively new class of missiles that conduct sustained maneuvering flight at hypersonic speeds and do not need to fly along high and predictable paths at any point (which is the golden oppertunity for interception).

Nom nom, eat up the education:

 

[AndrewS]

This is the level of logic you're capable of? You claim that all missiles traveling over 1,000km are hypersonic so I show you evidence that you are wrong by pointing out the subsonic 1,600km+ Tomahawk and your answer is to show me that hypersonic missiles exist?

There is literally no logical connection to draw this obviously incorrect conclusion. Do you know how many missiles including the Tomahawk can go over 1,000km but never reach hypersonic or even supersonic speeds?? Look it up!

I should have been clearer.
If you actually look at some of the reports on the composition of Iran's missile strikes on Israel, Iran didn't use many (if any) subsonic Tomahawk-class missiles.

There's a reason that that China has barely deployed any either, and has gone with supersonic/hypersonic missiles.
And as the US admiral was publicly quoted, subsonic non-stealthy cruise missiles are easy for medium-range SAM systems to shoot down

You have clearly never seen a video of a hypersonic missile touching down in Israel. The interceptors might as well have been out back having a smoke given how slow and how far they were to intercepting the lightning bolt coming down.

I've seen the videos and discounted them. What you're frequently seeing is the David's Sling or Iron Dome layers, which aren't designed to deal with ballisitc/hypersonic missiles. It's the Arrow and THAAD layers which are designed for this, which intercept at far higher altitudes and these missiles are in very short supply because they are expensive.

Interceptors work better the slower and the more predictable the missile. Just because you have no reliable way to intercept a maneuvering hypersonic missile doesn't mean you stop building interceptors and make yourself a sitting duck against all supersonic and subsonic missiles too. Iran can't afford to fire all hypersonic missiles; they are very expensive and the majority of Iran's missiles are definitely not hypersonic. When one of them is used, it's a big deal.

No country can afford to fire all hypersonic missiles. And this is not the optimal weapons mix anyway

I think you are under a misconception that all ballistic missiles that achieve a hypersonic speed at some point in their flight envelop are considered hypersonic missiles. They are not. That technology has been around for decades. When people say "hypersonic missile" in a modern military setting, talking about missiles that are almost impossible to intercept, they are not referring to that. They are referring to a relatively new class of missiles that conduct sustained maneuvering flight at hypersonic speeds and do not need to fly along high and predictable paths at any point (which is the golden oppertunity for interception).

Yes, not all ballistic missile reach hypersonic speeds. But if the targets are 1000km+ away, these missiles do have to reach hypersonic speeds.

You would have to distinguish between:

1. A purely ballistic trajectory
2. A ballistic trajectory with limited maneuverability (like the Pershing 2)
3. Hypersonic air-breathing cruise missiles
4. Glide-vehicles which can make radical turns

I would disagree that the world "hypersonic" has an accepted definition at this point.
It is, by definition, a measure of speed, not maneuverability.

In any case, Iran has announced it has a 2nd generation HGV deployed.

---

But back to the key points.

1. Israel only had a limited number of interceptors designed to handle ballistic/hypersonic missiles, which were overwhelmed by the number of Iranian missiles. So you can can't say interceptors are don't work.

2. Why is China deploying the HQ-19 and HQ-29, if they don't work? Why is the US still building more THAAD/SM-3 if they don't work?

At the end of the day, it's an engineering problem and the question is how expensive is the solution.

Nom nom, eat up the education:

You're referencing an Indian video with only 1300 views.
What can I say. You should try IISS or one of the other think tanks at least.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Omg I can't believe you're still talking now... LOL

I should have been clearer.

You should have been correct.

If you actually look at some of the reports on the composition of Iran's missile strikes on Israel, Iran didn't use many (if any) subsonic Tomahawk-class missiles.

There's a reason that that China has barely deployed any either, and has gone with supersonic/hypersonic missiles.
And as the US admiral was publicly quoted, subsonic non-stealthy cruise missiles are easy for medium-range SAM systems to shoot down

Pointless paragraph. We all know.

I've seen the videos and discounted them. What you're frequently seeing is the David's Sling or Iron Dome layers, which aren't designed to deal with ballisitc/hypersonic missiles. It's the Arrow and THAAD layers which are designed for this, which intercept at far higher altitudes and these missiles are in very short supply because they are expensive.

Interceptors to hypersonic missiles are expensive; hypersonic missiles are more expensive; carriers are crazy expensive. You are wrong about the 80-90% intercept rate against hypersonic missiles but even if you were right, China can still not afford to gamble carriers against 10-20+ hypersonic missiles fired at once to overwhelm interceptors anyway. The US can't afford to so its carriers need to run out of Asia if there is a China conflict. China will also need to get our carriers away from the US if there is a real fight.

No country can afford to fire all hypersonic missiles. And this is not the optimal weapons mix anyway

Also pointless as this is what I told you.

Yes, not all ballistic missile reach hypersonic speeds. But if the targets are 1000km+ away, these missiles do have to reach hypersonic speeds.

No. Again, no. Ballistic missiles can be just supersonic and Iran has used them against Israel. And even if they did reach hypersonic speeds, it's not what we're talking about because ballistic missiles that reach hypersonic speeds are not hypersonic missiles anyway.

You would have to distinguish between:

1. A purely ballistic trajectory
2. A ballistic trajectory with limited maneuverability (like the Pershing 2)
3. Hypersonic air-breathing cruise missiles
4. Glide-vehicles which can make radical turns

I would disagree that the world "hypersonic" has an accepted definition at this point.
It is, by definition, a measure of speed, not maneuverability.

It is accepted by everyone except you because you're trying to cover up the fact that you thought all ballistic missiles that reach hypersonic speeds are hypersonic missiles. Missiles that fly low at hypersonic speeds with unpredictable paths are very difficult to intercept and put carriers at a horrible disadvantage. That's the main point.

In any case, Iran has announced it has a 2nd generation HGV deployed.

Hope so but not the point.

But back to the key points.

1. Israel only had a limited number of interceptors designed to handle ballistic/hypersonic missiles, which were overwhelmed by the number of Iranian missiles. So you can can't say interceptors are don't work.

2. Why is China deploying the HQ-19 and HQ-29, if they don't work? Why is the US still building more THAAD/SM-3 if they don't work?

At the end of the day, it's an engineering problem and the question is how expensive is the solution.

The question is stupid. It's not whether they work or don't work. It's how effective they are at intercepting how fast of a target and how many need to take out one target. Your childish questions of "work" vs "don't work" betray your ignorance in military matters.

You're referencing an Indian video with only 1300 views.
What can I say. You should try IISS or one of the other think tanks at least.

Did you find something wrong about the video? Just Google it and you can find any number of sources saying the same thing. The Indian video is correct on a basic principle while your numerous claims are wrong:
1. Missiles need to be hypersonic to reach 1,000km range.
2. Ballistic missiles need to be hypersonic to reach 1,000km range.
3. Interceptors designed to take out hypersonic missiles have an 80-90% success in interception.
4. The term "hypersonic missile" refers to any missile that can achieve hypersonic speeds at any point in its trajectory.