PLAN Naval Helicopter & ASW Capability II

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
What makes you think PLAN LHD operations will be limited to the straits during a war scenario?

Because this was the topic back then. :)

Even 054A FFGs, 052D DDGs and 055 CGs are very high value assets. Are they also too big to risk? Should the entire PLAN just stay in port during a war to avoid getting sunk?

Should they be risked for the sake of risk?
If platform doesn't bring enough capability to risk it(1), drains valuable resources to protect it which could be used elsewhere(2), and itself is much more valuable in other - amphibious,C&C, etc. - usages(3) - it should be avoided. And above-mentioned 054As, 052D and 055s shall be used in more critical tasks than nursing sitting duck.

The biggest advantages LHDs brings to a PLAN fleet are its helicopters, which can perfectly complement the PLAN's large and growing ASW 056 fleet,
If you want ASW helicopter carrier - when you need to build one. For example - like this:
Hyuga_Class_vessels_Japan.jpg

Not to be used with 056s, ofc.

Focus of amphibious capability, aside from unnecessary facilities and staff to loose, compromise surface combatant in many different ways.

Btw, 056s won't be mainstray asw combatant outside of littoral. Aside from their own tasks(which are numerous and require numbers above all) , - they have neither autonomy nor actual capability to be employed as such.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Per it's nature, LHDs will have to be used in it's ASW role close to Chinese mainland. If used far from mainland that means that you have sacrificed an LHD for no good reason or that your navy is so strong that no enemy can put your LHDs in jeopardy.

Wow, with your very first sentence you produce a pure howler. The very point of LHDs are that they are designed to operate far from friendly shores.

The pre-requisite to having LHDs, LPDs and carriers is that you need to have other critical fleet elements in place to be able to defend them. That is why China waited so long before investing in carriers.

So, if they will be used close to shore ( frex. for sterilising of Taiwan Strait ), why just don't use land bases?

Classic strawman circular reasoning.

Also, about striking on enemy radars, well, attack helicopters launched from the mainland are much more stealthy than those launched from 25-40 000 t behemoth in middle of Taiwan Strait...

Nonsense. Where assets are launched has precisely zero impact on their 'stealthiness'. Approach vectors, terrain and distance to target are more important factors in determining the probability of success. An assault launched from an LHD can come from pretty much any direction, whereas assets launched from the mainland will have far more restricted ingress options owing to range. That gives the PLA far more options to pick approach vectors that bypasses most enemy defences and gives their assets the most chance of successfully completing their mission and getting back out in one piece.

Secondly, its is pure nonsense to insist anyone send LHDs into the Taiwan strait. That is pretty much the very last place you would want to send those assets, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of they very nature of these assets and how they can be used.

Having ASW screens fom an LHD east of Taiwan is something that PLAN willl not see for a long time, at least 10-15 years- and that's a whole different ballgame.

And you are basing this on what precisely?

During next say 10-15 years, all that PLAN can expect is that they are able to hold on long enough to conquer Taiwan and make it not really worthy to conquer back by being able to inflict unacceptable damage. During that time keep USN and Japanese Navy at bay with their DF-21D, air attacks and danger of conventional submarines. With frigates, land based ASW helicopters and Type 056 securing internal ring ( say 100-200 km from shore ) from enemy submarines.

Maybe you need to be telling the PLAN that, because the assets they are investing heavily on, 055s, UREP ships, carriers, and soon LHDs, are most certainly not suited for such a limited short ranges focus.

With inevitable US blockade being something that will be dealt later- somehow.

Do you even have the most rudimentary understanding of modern economics and politics to suggest such a silly thing? For one thing, the overwhelming majority of Chinese transpacific sea trade is destined for the US, and a significant portion of that would be goods made by US companies. A blockade is simply redundant if the US stops trading with China.

But that kind of trade disruption would hurt the US just as much as China. China is prepared to endure that pain, is America? Over Taiwan?

As for other sea based trade, well the nature of modern commerce is that very rarely do ships only carry cargo from their flag nation. For the US to try to blockade China would mean it having to stop ships from pretty much every other country in the world approaching the Chinese coast.

Leaving aside the utter destruction of the principle of freedom of navigation, logistically speaking, you will need a fleet several times the size of the USN to police such a vast stretch of water even with zero interference from China.

There is also the diplomatic consequences to the USN boarding ships from all over the world on the high seas. What happens if say Russia does not recognise the US embargo and sends unarmed freighters to China? For the USN to intercept them in international waters without an UN mandate would be a clear breach of international law and an act of agresssion against Russia. Same goes for ships of any other country they try to board.

The diplomatic risks and costs to such a blockade would be almost as high as the economic one for America.

Simply put, short of WWIII, an blockade is simply not an option.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Because this was the topic back then. :)

Which was a pretty silly suggestion in the first place.

Should they be risked for the sake of risk?
If platform doesn't bring enough capability to risk it(1), drains valuable resources to protect it which could be used elsewhere(2), and itself is much more valuable in other - amphibious,C&C, etc. - usages(3) - it should be avoided. And above-mentioned 054As, 052D and 055s shall be used in more critical tasks than nursing sitting duck.

The value of a ship is not measured just by its guns and missiles. By that silly definitions, carriers are also 'sitting ducks'.

What is the the point in having a navy? What is the point in having an ocean going blue water navy as opposed to a coastal defence trek and brown water navy?

It is to push the line of defence further and further out from your cities, coastal waters and territorial waters.

You don't want to be conduction ASW or fending off enemy air and sea attacks amongst the anchorages of your landing fleet. You want to push the area of engagement as far forwards as you can without over-extending yourself.

Worst case scenario, the PLAN has two fleets guarding both ends of the Taiwan strait to prevent hostile subs from slipping in and getting at all the landing fleet.

But ideally you want to control all the waters around Taiwan, or at least strongly contest it to cut of supplies and reinforcements from reaching Taiwan.

One of the main areas where the PLAN may be weak still is ASW, which is why LHDs make so much sense for them.

If you want ASW helicopter carrier - when you need to build one. For example - like this:
Hyuga_Class_vessels_Japan.jpg

Not to be used with 056s,

Yes, because you must call a ship a 'helicopter carrying destroyer' for it to be able to perform the role of an ASW helicopter carrier. :rolleyes:

For someone who was just making such a big deal about how 'vulnerable' such large assets are, you sure are slow on the uptake regarding the reason for including the 056s and the roles they are to perform.

Focus of amphibious capability, aside from unnecessary facilities and staff to loose, compromise surface combatant in many different ways.

Because the future Chinese LHDs must be designed a certain way and cannot be tailored to China's specific needs. :rolleyes:

Btw, 056s won't be mainstray asw combatant outside of littoral. Aside from their own tasks(which are numerous and require numbers above all) , - they have neither autonomy nor actual capability to be employed as such.

Maybe you need to tell both the USN and PLAN that, because both are investing heavily on ASW focused light ships in the form of the LCS and 056, which will form the backbone of both navy's ASW fleets in any conflict scenario that will involve both navies.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
It is to push the line of defence further and further out from your cities, coastal waters and territorial waters.
There is no such thing as constant line of defence in naval warfare.


Yes, because you must call a ship a 'helicopter carrying destroyer' for it to be able to perform the role of an ASW helicopter carrier. :rolleyes:
It's question of:
(1)speed and it's sustainability
(2)maneuverability(yes, it matters)
(3)acoustic signature
(4)availible countermeasures and their effectiveness
(5)survivability to underwater hits
and tons of other 6,7,8,9,10 and ce te ra.

You can perform ASW helicopter carrier work even from PANAMAX. Problem is, you'll just get your torpedo and what's it.
LHD is obvisly better than container ship, but in no way it's proper blue water combatant. Yes, even America-alike.
p.s. if you dislike japanese ships(which are, in any case, closest currently availible) - you may just as well look at italian carriers.

Because the future Chinese LHDs must be designed a certain way and cannot be tailored to China's specific needs. :rolleyes:
You may even require your CVNs carry contact minesweeping, describing it as "specific needs".
Problem is cost&size, apart from somewhat contradicting requirements. For example, hull lines and shape(both below and above the waterline), propulsion plant(not just power; again, compare typical modes of operation), internal subdivision, hangars, etc etc.


because both are investing heavily on ASW focused light ships in the form of the LCS and 056,
LCS is more than 2 times heavier than 056, and is closer to 054A in size, if anything.
In areas other than size they have even less in common.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
That is just a matter of an efficient and a less efficient design.
Nope. Initial idea behind LCS was actually very interesting. Problem is, it failed in multiple parts.
What's left is oversized, over-engineered, expensive yet weak train you can't jump from halfway.


056, on the other hand, is rather conservative combatant. Things what LCS was expected to provide - it never even tried. It isn't really bad, especially since LCS can't either. :)
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
There is no such thing as constant line of defence in naval warfare.

Depends entirely on the situation (the term 'ships of the line' is old, but the philosophy behind it may still have value today), but it was just a turn of speach in any case, so seems like a rather pointless nitpick.

It's question of:
(1)speed and it's sustainability
(2)maneuverability(yes, it matters)
(3)acoustic signature
(4)availible countermeasures and their effectiveness
(5)survivability to underwater hits
and tons of other 6,7,8,9,10 and ce te ra.

You can perform ASW helicopter carrier work even from PANAMAX. Problem is, you'll just get your torpedo and what's it.
LHD is obvisly better than container ship, but in no way it's proper blue water combatant. Yes, even America-alike.

Sigh, how many times must I say this? But the whole point is that the LHD is not supposed to be running down subs itself! That's what the 056s are for!

The LHD is there as a flagship to provide co-ordination as well as the rotor wing ASW assets the 056s themselves lack the hanger to house for long range operations.

It does not need to be stealthy, or armed specifically for ASW or anything else on your list other than speed, but that would likely have been a requirement anyways to keep up with carriers.

To add such capacity to a ship like an LHD is either a complete waste, or shows a total lack of confidence in your ASW assets that such high value assets might seriously be expected to have to deal with enemy subs directly.

p.s. if you dislike japanese ships(which are, in any case, closest currently availible) - you may just as well look at italian carriers.

I don't dislike Japanese ships because they are Japanese, I just think using their helicopter carriers as some gold standard is totally flawed because their 'helicopter carrying destroyers' themselves are a fundamentally politically compromised design.

The Japanese didn't want ASW carriers, they wanted real carriers, but couldn't hope to get such ships approved politically, so they put in as much carrier capacity as they think they could get away with, but seemed to have almost deliberately hamstrung the design in many important ways to get the design approved.

There is a reason the most technologically and financially capable navy on earth does not bother with such niche designs even though the primary threat from their biggest adversary was underwater.

Specialist ASW carriers are unnecessary. You just end up wasting money and space adding capacities you never want such high value assets to have to use onto ships that should be as far from the action as you could manage.

You may even require your CVNs carry contact minesweeping, describing it as "specific needs".

That's just an absurd strawman not worthy of further comment.

Problem is cost&size, apart from somewhat contradicting requirements. For example, hull lines and shape(both below and above the waterline), propulsion plant(not just power; again, compare typical modes of operation), internal subdivision, hangars, etc etc.

Again, if you stop using the Japanese ships as the benchmark and critically assess what capabilities you really need from a ship directing ASW from afar instead to getting stuck into the thick of the fighting (where you do not want such high value assets), just what requirements other than speed, hanger and deckspace does a ship need to function as an ASW carrier? And how does that clash with the amphibious assault capabilities of an LHD?

It is perfectly reasonable to roll those two roles into one, especially in a Taiwan scenario, since those LHDs could also conduct air assaults against targets on Taiwan.

LCS is more than 2 times heavier than 056, and is closer to 054A in size, if anything.
In areas other than size they have even less in common.

LCS are designed to fight in someone else's backward, whereas the 056 is designed to fight in China's own backyard.

But the small size of the 056s lends it even more advantages in ASW, because the PLAN can afford to use them in greater numbers to provide much more redundancy and extra coverage, and they are considered too small a target to be worth engaging for enemy subs. Especially since they will know that there are several other 056s close by enough to quickly respond to any such attack.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I've deleted the most off topic stuff. Please cut this out.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Sigh, how many times must I say this? But the whole point is that the LHD is not supposed to be running down subs itself! That's what the 056s are for!
1)It isn't like subs are bound to follow your will.
More so for SSNs, but against LHD-centered group even conventional subs under right conditions can do it.
2)056 can't hunt down modern subs in most situations, only respond. They simply don't have necessary specs.
Few surface combatants actually can hunt down modern SSN, but 056 will struggle even to accept&maintain contact with proper SSK.
3)check ranges of modern heavy torpedoes.
4)it's more than a waste - it will direcrly interfere with their effectiveness in their primary role.
Thus waste is not these specs, waste is attempt to look at LHD in ASW carrier role as something more than ersatz/despair attempt. Same with 056 beyond coastal functions.

I don't dislike Japanese ships because they are Japanese, I just think using their helicopter carriers as some gold standard is totally flawed because their 'helicopter carrying destroyers' themselves are a fundamentally politically compromised design.
They're not. Unless you look at them as ersatz carriers, which is precisely what you do.
Remember which ships they displaced, and where they're tactically attached.
And yes, they wanted precisely ASW carriers.

and critically assess what capabilities you really need from a ship directing ASW from afar(...)And how does that clash with the amphibious assault capabilities of an LHD?
You have very interesting concept of ASW. Sub(subs) are not moored mines.

2)for example - compare izumo and, say, mistral class hull lines, both below and above waterline, and how it will affect their specific handling in different conditions, in which either of them is most likely to operate. Compare their propulsion plants, cruising specs, specific capabilities(low speed precise vectored thrust alike), and why it's done this way.
Compare internal deck arragements, hangars, command facilities, accomodations,
Etc.
It is perfectly reasonable to roll those two roles into one, especially in a Taiwan scenario, since those LHDs could also conduct air assaults against targets on Taiwan.
It can, but neither it nor it's task force can do both at the same time, and are vulnerable in doing so.
 
Top