PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
At least one Karakurt should already be in service with the Russian Navy and a second in fitting or trials.
Both Buyan-M and Karakurt lacks proper ASW, whereas the 056 starts from GP to ASW. If its a small boat that's purely for antiship work, they already made up to 83 Type 022 Houbeis, each having 8 antiship missiles each. They stopped producing those boats to concentrate on the 056 which is an indication of a fundamental change of policy with regards to littoral defense. That change is strongly related to ASW.
Back in the days when China's naval leadership would have been more conducive to FACs, lets say around 2000 to 2010, China could have taken up Moskit laden Tarantuls but didn't. I don't think even at that period, China shares the same vision of littoral warfare with the Russians.
The Russian Navy's idea of the missile corvette can be summed up as David killing Goliath, but the Chinese Navy might have been more concerned with Davids fighting other Davids, considering that its surrounded with nations that are full of littoral combat vessels themselves.
I think shooting a supersonic ASM like an Oniks or Klub is overkill against a corvette, and ranges can be much closer. YJ-83s are a big step down from large supersonic ASMs, but they are still overkill against littoral vessels. But these are the missiles that are most available in the PLAN, cheap, and able to contend against both small and big targets. I don't see the PLAN wanting to use large expensive supersonic missiles against small boats and these missiles is what you want to save against bigger, more savory targets.
Even if the PLAN wanted a littoral boat with large missiles in a sort of anti-ship, anti-access sea area denial function, the Chinese shipbuilders may likely have capitalized on the Type 022 Houbei design.
And may come out like Taiwan's Tuo Chiang corvettes. Maybe the PLAN idea of it would use a YJ-12 or YJ-18 instead of the Hsiung Feng III supersonic missile.
Which brings us full circle, since ships like the Tuo Chiang are ships that the PLAN's littoral navy is faced with. If Russia sells Buyans or Karakurts to Vietnam, then these boats are added to the list of what the PLAN littoral ships have to contend. The PLAN would need their Davids to screen against these Davids trying to take down the PLAN's Goliaths. The PLAN has moved full lap, where it was at one point, the navy looking to brown seas A2AD, and is now on the other shoe, where it has to contend with the A2AD of its neighbors and protect its own bigger ships, while simultaneously facing the might of peer neighbors and countries. So I can't help but think that the PLAN for now, is done with the smaller boat and ship category, much less design or build their own Karakurts.
Even if you are adjacent, it would mean protecting your turf, and the area extending from your turf.
A2AD against China.
"While the term A2/AD usually refers to Chinese military plans, Gholz argued that other countries in the Asia-Pacific region could employ A2/AD to help protect against the possibility of a Chinese amphibious assault on their territory. This would enable those countries to defend themselves rather than .
As a result, countries like Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines could create “overlapping contested zones” to keep China at bay, a concept Gholz labelled “No Man’s Sea.” In other words, countries in the Asia-Pacific region could defend their own backyard rather than letting the United States defend it for them.
Using Taiwan to illustrate A2/AD’s application, Gholz explained that technology has made it easier and cheaper for countries to employ the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities necessary to conduct A2/AD operations. Although Taiwan has some domestic capability to build anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles (e.g., the Hsiung Feng III and Tien Kung I), it could do more to develop these capabilities."
Said boats can be part of a larger A2AD network or serve as its hammer. In fact, they cannot operate anywhere without a network --- the boats alone do not have sufficient sensor capability to make full use of their missiles, and would need the network to provide the targeting data.
I think the phrase A2AD is thrown around too casually in defense media and defense literature without consideration of respective technology levels, respective proximity of two adversaries and things like strategic depth etc, and also without trying to consider asymmetric vs symmetric capabilities.
What the authors describe as nations in westpac using A2AD against China, the degree of effectiveness of such a strategy would depend on how close those nations are to China, the capabilities that China would have had when such a conflict is joined, which includes the degree of technology difference between China and the opfor at that time.
I will say that a nation investing in "A2AD"/asymmetric capabilities means those capabilities may be more difficult to prosecute (aka more survivable) and able to inflict more relative damage against a more capable foe than if a nation invested in symmetric capabilities, however the absolute amount of strategic or operational success of the A2AD/asymmetric measure does depend on the factors I described above.
What latenlazy mentioned about using A2AD against a neighbouring "geographic foe" ties in with the factors about proximity and strategic depth.
For example, yes Vietnam or Taiwan could invest signifcantly into land based AShMs and fast attack boats, but when they are so close to China such that China would be able to bring to bear the mass of its own A2AD and more symmetric capabilities and the associated ISR supporting them, then the absolute amount of success or relevance of their land based AShMs and fast attack boats may be diminished. The sheer disparity in fire power and the ability to directly target the supporting assets behind their A2AD systems or to directly attack the shooters themselves (like taking out ships at dock, or attacking AShMs before they leave their bases/units etc), by virtue of being in such close proximity, means the absolute effectiveness of A2AD/asymmetric type systems can be significantly reduced.
However, what cannot be denied, is that asymmetric/A2AD type systems would definitely be more cost effective and more survivable for the likes of Taiwan or Vietnam if they were seeking to complicate PLA military operations, compared to if they had bought large surface combatants or something, which the PLA would of course be able to eliminate in a much faster process, if battle was joined.
I’ve read those reports before. Analysis of that mold is conceptually weak. It fundamentally misunderstands how A2AD works. What makes A2AD A2AD is the use of stand off positions to reinforce attacks from forward positions while forward positions simultaneously prevent adversaries from reaching stand off positions. That mutually reinforcing synthesis is how you create the area denial in A2AD. This strategy works only when those stand off positions aren’t vulnerable to attacks coming from other directions, like when they are nested deep inside a large country’s territory. A2AD is tailor made *specifically* to counter other militaries that are forward deployed from distant geographies, because those kinds of adversaries normally can’t attack an A2AD arrangement’s standoff positions in a different direction from its forward position. A2AD against China doesn’t work if you’re one of China’s neighbors because while you may try to defend your coast with missile boats you can’t defend those missile boat’s positions with missiles positioned at stand off ranges on the ground because those missiles are also vulnerable to China’s ground and air forces coming in a different direction from the coast. That doesn’t mean fortifying your coasts with missile boats and stand off weapons can’t be part of some sensible defense strategy, but doing that alone does not create effective area denial. What it would be, instead, is a much more basic porcupine strategy, which is very different from A2AD.
Last edited:
... and others !
PLEASE !!! The topic is related to "PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos"
and not on a general discussion on A2AD, Russian export wet-dreams or how to sink a Taiwanese vessel.
Come on. Not each and every comment has to be discussed in length ... especially in a news thread.
Deino
So I understand we’re off topic, and I have no qualms with the moderating here, but in the event that you’re thinking about doing a clean up I’d request at least letting me know ahead of time so I can save my last post on this A2AD tangent. That way I can refer back to it in the future, as I imagine I’ll be needing it again for other discussions. Thanks Deino.
No problem and surely I would have informed you and the others involved prior to any action.
Also I fully understand that I'm for some or at lest a sometimes too strict on calling to stay on topic regardless that I'm fully aware that this is the nature of a forum.
However I recently have the feeling that a bit more discipline would be good since it seems to be a trend ... a discussion in the Type 002 carrier thread drivels down to operational comparisons of PLAN vs. USN and the future use of a Chinese carrier battle group, an image showing a J-11A armed with rocket pods exceeds into a discussion on modern warfare, CAS and the lack of a missile like the Brimstone including their latest operational results, a wrongly posted image of a Type 094 SSBN in the 095/096 leads to a lond discussion on Chinese nuclear reactors and finally a new image of a 093 !! ... and so on.
Again I do not want to kill each post that brings a slight off-topic point of view into a discussion, but I beg all to remember - at least sometimes - what's the topic.
Best,
Deino
China starts to build littoral mission ships for Malaysia
Source
Editor
Yao Jianing
Time
2018-08-01
A+-
WUHAN, Aug. 1 (ChinaMil) -- According to reports from Wuhan, construction of a littoral mission ship (LMS), the first of its kind that China will build for Malaysia, began at the Shuangliu base of Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group Co., Ltd. (“Wuchang Shipbuilding”) under China Shipbuilding Industry Co. (CSIC) in Wuhan, capital of central China’s Hubei Province, on Tuesday.
He Jiwu, vice president of CSIC, said at the launching ceremony for construction that the Littoral Mission Ship Project is the first cooperation between China and Malaysia in the field of large military equipment and is a landmark project of great significance.
According to reports, contract of the Malaysian Littoral Mission Ship Project was signed on April 21, 2017. It is an important milestone for Chinese military trade enterprises to export large military equipment to Malaysia for the first time.
According to the project contract, China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co., Ltd. (CSOC) will design and build four littoral mission ships for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) to perform various tasks such as patrol, anti-terrorism, search and rescue, and fishery protection missions.
This type of littoral mission ship was designed by the 701 Research Institute of CSIC. Wuchang Shipbuilding will be responsible for the construction of the first and second ships; and the third and fourth ships will be jointly built by Wuchang Shipbuilding and Malaysia’s local shipbuilding company Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BNSSB).
Also, the RMN Chief Admiral Ahmad Kamarulzaman Badaruddin said that Malaysia is very appreciative of the strong strength of CSIC in the field of naval equipment and believes that the Littoral Mission Ship Project will be a complete success.
Source
Editor
Yao Jianing
Time
2018-08-01
A+-
WUHAN, Aug. 1 (ChinaMil) -- According to reports from Wuhan, construction of a littoral mission ship (LMS), the first of its kind that China will build for Malaysia, began at the Shuangliu base of Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group Co., Ltd. (“Wuchang Shipbuilding”) under China Shipbuilding Industry Co. (CSIC) in Wuhan, capital of central China’s Hubei Province, on Tuesday.
He Jiwu, vice president of CSIC, said at the launching ceremony for construction that the Littoral Mission Ship Project is the first cooperation between China and Malaysia in the field of large military equipment and is a landmark project of great significance.
According to reports, contract of the Malaysian Littoral Mission Ship Project was signed on April 21, 2017. It is an important milestone for Chinese military trade enterprises to export large military equipment to Malaysia for the first time.
According to the project contract, China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co., Ltd. (CSOC) will design and build four littoral mission ships for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) to perform various tasks such as patrol, anti-terrorism, search and rescue, and fishery protection missions.
This type of littoral mission ship was designed by the 701 Research Institute of CSIC. Wuchang Shipbuilding will be responsible for the construction of the first and second ships; and the third and fourth ships will be jointly built by Wuchang Shipbuilding and Malaysia’s local shipbuilding company Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BNSSB).
Also, the RMN Chief Admiral Ahmad Kamarulzaman Badaruddin said that Malaysia is very appreciative of the strong strength of CSIC in the field of naval equipment and believes that the Littoral Mission Ship Project will be a complete success.