Future PLAN developments - new escorts, subs, LPH, carriers, etc

SampanViking said:

Irrespective I can see two roles for such Amphib/Small Cariers:

i) Anti Piracy operations in the South China Seas, Straits of Malaccha and the Indian Ocean and African Coast (Niger Delta region).

ii) The other - perhasp as an extension of the first would be more participation in International Peacekeeping. I know i have talked about both of these before, but as China gets richer (probably 4th biggest economy today, maybe 3rd by the end of the year and 2nd in ten years time, if current rates persist) it will come under greater pressure to pick up its share of the cost and responsibility for these duties.

Click to expand...

Ok, I get what you mean. Here is what I think.
ff
1. Anti-piracy operations is great priorty in many countries, but also a lot of tension create from it. Especially in the south China Seas, many countries tried to limit other nations from patrol near their sea line. I know US and many countries have join together to anti-piracy operations, but indosnisa and malaysia aren't happy the way things go. I have some doubt what China willing to deploy to anticipate this kind of missions, or much less cooperation between US. It might look as a big bully and a small bully come together to kick little countries butt. There are a lot of disputes area, so every one should be careful. If China ever participate into this kind of missions, they would probaly send something less threating.

2. China definite will begin more active in peacekeeping, but you have to remember Chinese policy of not interfere with other countries internal affair since Deng. Even China will do more, doesn't mean they will be taking charge or doing in big numbers. I would whether think China will getting involve with more missions, but not in lead, numbers and some countries. I don't think China needs to send DDG or something more powerful to acheive these kind of missions.

3. Humanitarian assistance will be great way to use amphip, but if China amphip or warships show up in indonesia. They would not be welcome like US did in Tsunami, many south east Asia countries still do not trust China. Also China are content with sending Doctors, aids and equipments now, maybe later China could do more.

My assetment of future PLAN developments are Amphip will not be priorty, but carriers like Varyag would be more likely.

I think it would be still optimistic for china to have a well train, well developed carrier force by 2020. I have read some where that carrier won't last beyone 2050, so I think China should just by-pass this carrier phase of naval war fare all together. China should move into an agile and fast striking naval force for the future.

KYli said:

Sampanviking,
I agreed of what you said, but China do not have what it take to protect their carriers. Maybe twenty years later, but now even China builded six or eight Carriers they could not control the trade lane. And no way China could cut off supply line with enemy force. If China has conflict with the US, USA will control the sea, and these would not change in near future. Whether, China could try to contol their coastline, and subs are better job on that. If you are talking about Japan, Russia, French, india and British, I would rather think DDG, FFG and subs will do better job of carriers. China would need to build few new CV as stopover to Great carriers groups in future, but should not relay not carriers.

Click to expand...

I china wants to stop trade lines of her enemy then all she needs if to lok at the german example 50 subs at sea nearly starve out britian now days its alot easier SSM and airsupport

conveying is also impossible now thanls to growth in ship size. China can surive in a war with out the sea but most of her rivials cant especialy japan right now they have supplies for 3 moneth.subs plus a modest number of advanced destroyer is the way to go

bd popeye said:

Roger could you please elaborate on this statement. thanks.

Roger, Jeff is correct in this statement above. Nothing at sea except a FAC or future USN LCS is as fast as a USN CVN.

Click to expand...

You persuaded me that carriers are fast relative to other surface combatants. But what I'm saying is that future developments in terminal guidance of ballistic missiles may make any target travelling at realistic speeds for a ship (i.e. not supersonic) very vulnerable, especially if said ship is big, flat, expensive, densely staffed and generates a lot of electromagnetic radiation.

Many people have been saying that carriers are becoming obsolete. I think smaller, cheaper carriers will be useful for a while. LPH and Euro-style carriers are probably more along the lines of what China should invest in.

KYli said:

One very stong indication of what PLAN consider more important, that is the secretcy of the project. We all know how much China tried to hide the j10, so what project we are lack of information now shoud be a strong indication for how important the PLAN consider it. SO SSBN and SSN are their first priorty.

Click to expand...

Very good point. I agree whole-heartedly. But why do you think that there won't be significant improvements in SSN/SSBN's in the near future? Might 093/094 be a stepping stone just like the new destroyers/frigates? Or is there evidence that China has reached an intractable obstacle in nuclear sub design that it has not in surface combatants?

adeptitus said:

I don't believe the PRC today has effective "secondary strike" nuclear deterrance, with its limited number of ICBM's. The PLAN should follow British or French model and have at least 4 SSBN's to serve that role.

Click to expand...

This is off-topic, but I think China can solve this problem with mobile ICBM's like the Russian Topol or Topol-M. The DF-31A (or DF-41) programs have been a total mystery for many years now. Nobody knows the true state of the ICBM modernization program.

SampanViking said:

I can think of two main reasons why the PLAN may wish to develop a number of operational Carrier Groups:

i) Protecting China's interests with its increasing overseas trade links and subsequent supply lanes.

ii) Creating an effective second Sea Front against any potential Sea Borne aggressor. This would include not only an ability to strike at any enemy Task Force from Multiple Directions, but also removing any notion of safe zone away from the Chinese Coast. In addition any enemies supply routes and en-route supply facilites would also be vulnerable to counter action action.

Click to expand...

I think we can pretty much all agree this would be the goal for PLAN in the post 2020 timeframe.

Darth Sedious,

I agreed China could probaly surive without sea, but you could not use Subs blockade the Japan. Japan is world number one ASW country, China would be much better of using combine DDG/FFG and cruise missles+M9/m11. It would be much more effective. Well I would say only USA could make a full blockade to China, other countries will have hard time to acheive Sea superior.

Roger604,

What I mean is China had encounter great difficult to delevolp their own SSBN and SSN. Xia and Han were so bad that they never put into active serivice. Only after Russia assistance and much more experience for chinese scientists, Xia and Han problems are finally fix. That why I would think China are extremely careful about 93 and 94. They will take a lot of time to study the Subs first, after sucessful trial and test they will build each new pair of them with some modifaction. Yes, you could say 93 and 94 a stepover to next generation of subs, China will do it step by step for experience. After they had what they consider significant improvement and design, then they will develop and build the next generation subs. Well the good comparson will be ZTZ99, ZTZ99G, ZTZ99GG.

You persuaded me that carriers are fast relative to other surface combatants. But what I'm saying is that future developments in terminal guidance of ballistic missiles may make any target travelling at realistic speeds for a ship (i.e. not supersonic) very vulnerable, especially if said ship is big, flat, expensive, densely staffed and generates a lot of electromagnetic radiation.

Many people have been saying that carriers are becoming obsolete. I think smaller, cheaper carriers will be useful for a while. LPH and Euro-style carriers are probably more along the lines of what China should invest in.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your response Roger. I agree, I stated this in other threads, that the PLAN should develop and put to sea it's own smaller type LPH. That type ship would suit the PLAN pourpose. 24-30 helos would be perfect.

If future ballistic missiles are able to track on target as you say. Almost any large war ship may be rendered useless.

I almost wish I didn't post that ballistic missile article now. Guys, just realize that the article is a speculation for now. There is no reason to assume that it will come out any time soon. So, I guess my point is to not bring ASBM into arguments unless we get further evidences on this.

Anyhow, continuing on this, in order for China to actually have a semi-useful LPH, it would need to do something about the naval helicopter situation. Currently, all we got is Z-9C and some Z-8 (not enough firepower at all). Until I see a naval version of Z-10 coming out, this is likely a pipe dream.

That ballistic missile thing i placed it in my personal "I believe it when I see it" category. There is so many questions there that need to be answered. It also smells like a US election year ruse to get more ABM funding.

China's immediate military objective is the retaking of Taiwan. Sundry other goals exist, but it is most effective to pursue this one goal above all else -something akin to 'tunnel vision'.

I would definitely agree with the consensus on this thread that China needs an amphibious assault group or three. It would work well to power project into the south China sea (see Spratly Islands), as well as for sending into relief/rescue missions (eg. Tsunamis), yet still dovetails nicely into adding more material against Taiwan.

LPH's and LPD's are good things for China to have. But there still is no cogent argument on this thread for China to have an expensive, full-fledged aircraft carrier before 2020.

If and when China decides on a carrier, it needs to build a series of them. This is because there is only one purpose for them: challenging the combined American and Japanese fleets in the pacific protecting Taiwan. Until then, to build carriers for any other purpose is a pure waste of Chinese resources.

Any design on the scale of the Varyag is doomed. It needs to be big (80+ planes), and it needs dam good fighter technology -which China won't have until 2020.

People need to abandon this idea of making carriers 'on the cheap'.

KYli said:

PLAN first priorty should be Subs, especially the 94 and Yuan should be most important. Number two priorty should be DDGs and FFGs, make a bigger version of the 52c with 96 instead 48 h9, and since 54a is coming out soon we will see what it got. I heard at least four is going to come out and have 32SAM16 and 730ciws. Varyag will be a stopover the new CV, and I think new CV will be coming out at around 2010.

I agreed with popeye that it is also very important for PLAN to concentrate building quality, and train the people as much as you should be.

Click to expand...

How's the quality of PLAN submarine crews? Are the training for the crewmembers of the PLAN's Type 094 and Type 093s finished yet? Do any one here knows how many PRC citizens join the PLAN annually by average numbers?