Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.

[Jeff Head]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

Thanks Jeff. But also there is a limitation of the budget, only $30B for PLAN, would you think this budget is enough ?.

I don't believe PLAN needs to have 3 carriers, one carrier is enough. PLAN doesn't need to have a dedicated carrier force, 70-80 % readiness would be sufficient. Most aspects of crew training could be done by simulator and on VARYAG (?).

For 70-80% readiness, the PLAN will have to have a minimum of two carriers, and 70-80% reeadiness and availablility with two is a stretch. That is why I said three. With three, they could have a carrier at sea 75%-100% of the time...which is what they need if they need carriers at all for something other than show.

I believe the Chinese Navy can buy a whole lot more for $30b than any western navy can...but I believe they will end up spending more on the PLAN in years to come...approaching $50-75b probably.

Just my opinion.

 

[Red_CCF]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

hi folks,

I have been thinking of ideal Chinese navy, not too big but modern and strong enough to :

* defeat any navy in the world (except US of course) who would try to get close to Chinese second island chain ... let's say 1,500 miles from Chinese coast.

*The navy would be strong enough to defeat 3 navies (third rate navies, like Vietnam, Philipina, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc) at the same time.

* To defeat any neighbouring strong navies, ie Japanese, Korean, or Russian navies.

I would imagine the backbone of Chinese navy would be like :

1 medium size carrier, 60,00 ton with 30 fighters
100 SU-30 MKK2/3/4
100 JH-7A/B or C
10 52C/D
10 51C/D
6 Sov II/III
20 54A
16 Kilo II
20 Songs II
20 Yuan
5 093
3 094
7 QIANDAOHU CLASS FLEET REPLENISHMENT SHIP

the navy budget would be limited to "only" $30B ( would it be enough ?, please discuss )

would you think It could achieve those objectives ? ..please discuss

remember that $30B in China is worth a lot more than in US

This compliment can no way be enough to engage and defeat the navy of Japan (might be able to defeat the Republic of Korea navy). The Japanese possess superior technology gained from the U.S. and has a larger number of modern ships. Also, by the time the simulation listed above can be put to reality, the Japanese navy along with other navies in the world would have upgraded to an even more advanced level of technology and number. However, if ground support is added, there might be a chance that the navy that you listed could defeat a navy such as ones belonging to Japan.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

The main justification for China having a Carrier based Navy as opposed to a coastal defence force is so it can engage an enemy away from it's own shores. The question essentially is, do you want to fight the next war on your territory (with all the loss of civilian life and infrastructure that would involve) or do you take the fight to your enemies territory and let them be 'bombed back to the stone age'. A carrier is a forward operating base, sovreign real estate that can go anywhere without having to get permission from a host country (as land based aircraft have to do when deployed abroad). When was the last time Britain or America fought a war on their own soil? I think China has learned this lesson and others, and agree that you need three at least to guarantee one is always on station (one in refit, one working up after refit for six months at least and one forward deployed). I don't think the PLAN will limit itself to just three ships either, but will have a long term rolling program of construction stretching over the next few decades. In ten years they will probably have two CVs in service (Varyag and the first indigenously designed and built carrier) with another under construction, and a fourth ship planned to replace Varyag after twenty plus years service (just an educated guess on my part). Thirty years from now a fifth and sixth CV will be in the works to expand the PLAN further as well as an appropriate number of DDGs and FFGs to support them. The PLAN is looking to the long term, ie the next fifty years, rather than the next five or ten and their plans should be viewed in that context.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

However, if ground support is added, there might be a chance that the navy that you listed could defeat a navy such as ones belonging to Japan.

Ground-support? You mean shore-based missiles? Hmm, I don't see the JMSDF wandering over towards China to start a punch-up. If there was an engagement I think it would out-of-range of shore-based facilities. The only thing you could throw in would be land-based planes - but then again the Japanese could bring the JASDF into the equation, so really you can't rely on air support, bar long-ranged planes like P-3 Orions.

 

[Finn McCool]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

I think that China will end up with 4 or 5 carriers. This is because it is becoming a global superpower, with global economic interests. Defending these interests requires the capability to deploy to essentially anywhere and win but for China the critical areas are the Eastern Pacific and the Indian
Ocean. To these ends China is building Gwadar and trying to reclaim Taiwan. 4-5 carriers will be necessesary in order to have a force karge enough to launch offensive operations anywhere, but particularly in those areas (at any one time you could have 3 ready for offensive operations, with the overall force something like what the Royal Navy deployed in the Falklands). The other naval powers in China's essential reigions, Japan and India, will probably only have one to three carriers in the forseeable future. Therefore, 4-5 carriers would give China enough mobile power to both send an offensive force anywhere and convincingly control its core economic reigions.

 

[Violet Oboe]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

China resources are substantial but also limited and PLAN´s admirals know that their ´big time´ in the game has yet to arrive. The unfourtunate example of late admiral Gorshkov who died mercifully early enough for not witnessing the disgraceful implosion of his mighty soviet high seas fleet shows instructively that a strong navy without a viable comprehensive strategic concept is completely worthless.

China is eventually (similar to Russia) a continental power and every sea power can only be an useful extension of her core power potential.

Correspondingly PLA will have to set definite priorities:

1. Second Artillery. The modernization of China´s deterrence capabilities have to be conducted with utmost urgency and the main strategic pillar will be formed by road and rail mobile ballistic and cruise missiles plus air based assets. Sea based SLBM´s are relatively vulnerable since US Navy SSN will constantly attempt to destroy them preemptively and consequently PLAN SSBN will play essentially a prestige role in her strategy at least in the coming 10 years.

2. PLAAF and first line ´elite´ Group Armies of the PLA. They must develop the necessary punch for defeating regional adversaries decisively in a difficult environment.

Several contingency scenarios must be taken into account: a) Reintegration of Taiwan within a week and with the lowest degree of casualties (on Taiwan!) and destruction possible. (Perhaps more of a propaganda maneuver than a real military operation)
b) Intervention in Korea if China has to prevent imminent US aggression and/or collapse of North Korea. Two Group Armies have to take up positions within 100 hours near DMZ for sending the strongest possible signal that China will not tolerate any dangerous further destabilization.
c) Intervention in Central Asia if China´s energy interests are severely violated by the US. An allied operation with Russia must be able to secure all former soviet states and establish a stable land bridge to Iran within three weeks.
d) Small regional wars on China´s borders, e.g. a possible stabilization intervention in Myanmar or in Mongolia.

PLAAF and PLA will be hard pressed for solving the plethora of problems and challenges if one of these crises actually occurs but with the necessary resources they will probably be able to to achieve their objectives.

3. PLAN has to extend her defensive/denial capabilties in order to make any US intervention in a potential Taiwan conflict as costly as possible.Achieving that objective is quite important but nevertheless secondary to the tasks of the PLAAF and the PLA. Accordingly three or even five CV/CVN´s are nonsense and a waste of resources since one or two units are enough for establishing China as an ascending major power on the global stage. The most chinese admirals are very aware of the fact that even the USSR began only after achieving strategic parity around 1970 with the build up of a truly oceanic fleet. Only after achieving that level step by step, gradually more substantial (in relation to Sec.Art/PLAAF/PLA) investments in PLAN´s build up are justified. :coffee:

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

Three to five CVs are the long term objective for the PLAN, over the next 30 or 40 years by which time the other strategic build ups you mention will have been substantially achieved. Three CVs are the minimum needed to guarantee one is forward deployed at any given time, and should be considered the minimum effective force level for any Navy wanting to deploy carriers seriously as opposed to just for national pride. The numbers I mentioned in previous posts do not take into account any small 'LPH' style CVs which the PLAN may build in addition to the CV force.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

Three CVs are the minimum needed to guarantee one is forward deployed at any given time, and should be considered the minimum effective force level for any Navy wanting to deploy carriers seriously as opposed to just for national pride.

So you're telling me that both the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale are going to be stuffed with just two each? Three might be a good number to have at some point, but I think two is the actual minimum one would need to always have a carrier available.

Personally I don't think it's worth thinking about China having three or more carriers, because that's too far off in the distance - we can't even be sure what the political situation will be like at the time, let alone the economic. I will be pleased to simply see China have its first operational (not training) carrier over the coming years.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

When the French and British Govs drew up their CV plans, it goes without saying they didn't actually ask anyone here for advice! Britain will be in a better position than France as the STOVL F-35B can be flown from HMS Ocean and RFA Argus in an emergency so the RN will still have FOUR flightdecks available. The RN has a track record of not letting the politicians know too much as they plainly can't be trusted, and it's worth remembering that NONE of the Five carriers in the RNs possession were ordered as Carriers(Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal were 'Through Deck Cruisers, Ocean was ordered as 'Amphibious Support Ship', and Argus as an 'Auxilliary Helicopter Training Ship') so we should be watching out for what they try to slip past the Government under some bland and meaningless title. Neither Ocean or Argus could carry as many as a CVF but some fighters are better than none, and Ocean's replacement, scheduled for 2018, will be a larger LHD type ship. I believe this is another reason why the RN is reluctant to buy the CTOL F-35C as this would limit the number of decks it can be flown from.

The French will be worse off as they will only have two CTOL carriers, and the Mistral and Tonnere will be limited to helos as the French do not have STOVL aircraft. If needed a British Squadron of F-35s could temporarily operate from them in a joint operation. Otherwise the two CV force level will give an operational availability of no more than 80% and sometimes less, even with reduced refit times promised for CVF.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Ideal Chinese Navy

Britain will be in a better position than France as the STOVL F-35B can be flown from HMS Ocean and RFA Argus in an emergency so the RN will still have FOUR flightdecks available.

Woah, woah, woah - that's not the same thing as having three or four dedicated carriers. For one thing RFA Argus wouldn't have a hanger to store them in - not sure about whether Ocean's lifts would be big enough. And they don't have ski-jumps, so they'd only really be useful as "taxis". In an emergency they could be used for landing, but that would be about it.

If you do think that those two ships are that useful, then maybe China should aim to have two carriers and two LPH ships like HMS Ocean (rather than just drill ahead and get lots of aircraft carriers).

Hopefully we will be seeing another ship like Ocean (maybe even one that could operate the F-35), but that's a long way down the line.