PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Oct 24, 2014.

  1. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    28,790
    Likes Received:
    22,121
    China will build 4 nuclear aircraft carriers in drive to catch US Navy, experts say

    Four of at least six aircraft battle groups China plans to have in the water by 2035 will be nuclear-powered, as the Asian giant tries to equal the US in naval strength, according to Chinese military experts.

    The specialists said that after decades of trying to close the gap, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s hardware might by then be closer to matching the world’s leading superpower in aircraft carrier technology – but it would still lag in real combat experience.

    All of China’s new carriers were expected to be equipped with electromagnetic catapults similar to those used by the United States, the experts said. The US’ electromagnetic aircraft launch system, known as EMALS, can launch more aircraft more rapidly than the older diesel systems.

    “China’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with [EMALS-like systems] are expected to join the navy by 2035, bringing the total number of carriers to at least six – although only four will work at the front line,” Wang Yunfei, a naval expert and retired PLA destroyer naval officer, said.

    Beijing is keen to expand its aircraft carrier battle groups to fulfil its global naval ambitions and defend its growing overseas interests. Construction of its next conventional diesel-powered aircraft carrier, the Type 002 – the first equipped with the electromagnetic launchers – began last year.

    “Even if the economic downturn has an effect, we can adjust proportions in total military expenditure to make sure naval modernisation keeps going,” he said. “For example, we can cut the number of new tanks.

    “The budget for military modernisation will not be cut, even if [Beijing] decided to [use force to] reunify Taiwan. In a war scenario, [Beijing] may reduce spending on things like infrastructure, but it would increase military expenditure.”

    Not the best source for a story like this. But I do trust the poster of this story in another forum

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mil...nuclear-aircraft-carriers-drive-catch-us-navy
     
    Equation likes this.
  2. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    20,323
    Likes Received:
    26,122

    LOL do you mean Minnie Chan
    ?

     
  3. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    2,355
    This shot posted by by78 a page back, also shows a Type 908 oiler, 885, and the bow of an even rarer ship, the mobile landing dock 868 at the right of the picture.

    39938240023_9e178d0656_o.jpg



    PLAN_MLP_Mobile_Landing_Platform_868_2.jpg
     
  4. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    882
    Well. China already under invests in tanks as it is. Plus these systems are a lot more expensive to build than tanks. You typically can get like 50-70 tanks for the price of a single fighter. You can get like 40 fighters for the price of a single carrier. There are still a lot of unknowns on how successful the Chinese next generation carrier program will be. There are some major leaps required for it to happen. Even assuming it all goes well and they do get to 6 carriers. The question is what is the use for those carriers? Also I think that if the Chinese go into the carrier building route they should make carriers smaller than the USA's. Like, say, QE-class or CdG-class, size rather than Ford-class size. This will allow them to, for the same price and tonnage, to be in more theaters of operation at once. They should also consider even lighter drone only carriers I think. Something the size of the Spanish and Turkish multipurpose amphibious/carrier vessels with EMALS instead of the ski ramp.

    So I can't say I agree with the conclusions in that SCMP article.

    I also think it is too early to decrease civilian infrastructure and industry spending. What might make sense would be to rethink some of the strategic priorities.
    For example stop high speed rail network expansion and focus more on things like reduced pollution in large cities and decrease dependency on oil through other means.
    The subway expansions in large cities should continue as should light rail in mid size cities (2-3 million ppl). In fact I think the government should focus more on mid size cities.
    A lot of the rural population has been going back home in recent years and the Chinese government needs to take care of that. Foster the economy on small sized cities so that the country's economy becomes more resilient. By this I don't mean just building houses. I mean building actual communities with small scale industry or education facilities. This will require intervention at a local level.
     
  5. Dante80
    Offline

    Dante80 New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2018
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    35
    They would need one for each fleet, one for training purposes and another on the docks (refits, upgrades, maintenance etc). So 6 active carriers as an ultimate goal does not seem that far-fetched, especially if PLAN decides to seriously project into their SLOC.
     
    bruceb1959 and antiterror13 like this.
  6. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    635
    @gelgoog

    Carriers would primarily be there to pressure faraway third world countries. They can also be surged within Asia to break a local USN blockade or used to blockade someone in the SEA.

    Uniquely for China, they could also work as floating bases to compensate for the political unwillingness to aggressively establish real bases on foreign soil.

    In short, against the US they do not add much utility at all. But against everyone else, they add a shit ton of options.

    Technologically speaking, the design is not that hard. It is easier to build 4 100k+ ton carriers than to build 8 50k ton carriers. The latter takes up more shipyard slots. The small ones will require more advanced miniaturization tech too.

    It is not vital for the PLAN to operate in many different theatres. If something bad happens, the fleet can surge to a particular theater, otherwise they will remain in close to home waters and defend against the big enemy...
     
  7. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    3,349
    Beg to differ on carriers not offering much utility at all against US. Going against a carrier group means going up against a carrier group’s air wing, which is the means by which the US carrier fleet sinks opposing ships. The only way to combat that air power is with one’s own, but land based forces are range and persistence limited. This is why ultimately it’s still necessarily to have a carrier when fighting against another carrier. At the very least you need the A2A capabilities to counter naval air strikes. This is especially the case if you’re trying to keep an adversary’s carrier group from striking your mainland. You don’t want to meet ingressing carrier fleets at a range where they can effectively attack your land bases and missile sites. If possible you want to be able to provide a layered defense. This means, in a hypothetical fight between the US and China, that you want to be able to win at sea at least out to the first island chains, and the only way to provide effective air power at that range, without extensive forward positioned bases, is with an aircraft carrier.
     
    Yodello and bruceb1959 like this.
  8. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    20,323
    Likes Received:
    26,122
    the second FON this year by the USN in the SCS: https://us.cnn.com/2019/02/10/politics/us-ships-south-china-sea/index.html
    now off the Spratlys, after the Taiwan Strait Jan 25, 2019
     
  9. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    6,720
  10. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    20,323
    Likes Received:
    26,122
    Today at 7:54 AM
    and now noticed
    16:38, 11-Feb-2019
    China strongly dissatisfied by U.S. warships entering South China Sea https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d7a496a4e32457a6333566d54/index.html

     
Loading...

Share This Page