Ask anything Thread

[kurutoga]

There have been civilizations that have tried to gain power and prosperity by "ruling the waves." Examples of these seapower states would be Athens in ancient Greece, Venice during the dark ages, Portugal in the age of discovery, and most famously the British who built an empire where the sun never sets. A seapower state puts "all of its eggs into one basket", the Navy. A continental power would be the opposite. Its power comes from the land not the sea.
China historically has been a continental power.
Question, can China ever become a Seapower State?

Seapower implies the country is not afraid of conducting constant naval warfare. That is difficult in the era of nuclear weapons. Say country A attacks country B's ships, the proper response might be sending ICBMS to A's capital, not another naval war.

So the navy is really used by large countries against small countries. It's even questionable if US navy and PLA will fight directly over Taiwan, because nuclear escalation is truly out of control when that happens.

But when China fights a small country far away, that is when power projecting is necessary. So yes China is a seapower already, but not in the traditional sense. Remember China is not US 2.0. China does not want to go to war with anyone unless being pushed like in 1962

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Similar question to what I asked about the PLA Air Force, China is building ships rapidly these days with around 50 destroyers now available and also adding carriers, LHDs and so on. So, is the PLA navy actually expanding its size in terms of number of brigades/personnel? Or are they just retiring older ships and moving personnel, which is what they are doing in the air force.

How big is the PLA Navy in terms of personnel compared to say 2010?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Similar question to what I asked about the PLA Air Force, China is building ships rapidly these days with around 50 destroyers now available and also adding carriers, LHDs and so on. So, is the PLA navy actually expanding its size in terms of number of brigades/personnel? Or are they just retiring older ships and moving personnel, which is what they are doing in the air force.

Expanding. In fact, much of the ships and boats in the PLAN are less than 20 years old.

For those ships and boats that were commissioned in the 1990s and early-mid 2000s, depending on ship type, there are still around 20-25 years-worth of service life with their hulls, as long as proper maintenance and upkeep are conducted.

How big is the PLA Navy in terms of personnel compared to say 2010?

I don't have any stats on personnel number in 2010, but the latest (i.e. 2022) is around 300 thousand.

For comparison, the US Navy (2021) has around 350 thousand active personnel and 102 thousand ready reserve personnel.

 

[kurutoga]

How big is the PLA Navy in terms of personnel compared to say 2010?

As a side note, PLA navy contains the navy, the marine, the carrier-based naval air force, and land-based naval air force. The traditional land-based naval air force is being moved into the PLA air force.

 

[ScarletMagician]

Ok so this is a quick question because I've not been able to dig up any info for what I want (in English so far, probably might try something in Chinese later), but where can I find specs, literature and other stuff on the battle management system (aka Chinese Aegis in pop culture parlance) that the PLAN is currently fielding? All I know so far is that technically, the Type 346 radar are theoratically able to support such a system.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

As a side note, PLA navy contains the navy, the marine, the carrier-based naval air force, and land-based naval air force. The traditional land-based naval air force is being moved into the PLA air force.

how does that work? Even US keeps ground based naval air because there's way more planes than carriers can support and there's non-carrier planes like P-3 and P-8.

 

[kurutoga]

how does that work? Even US keeps ground based naval air because there's way more planes than carriers can support and there's non-carrier planes like P-3 and P-8.

Those planes still carry out anti-ship tasks. They are just under the command of AF instead of Navy. Some AF units (like bombers etc) have the same exact task.

The navy retains some training bases on land.

 

[Deleted member 24822]

Thank you for approving my account Longtime lurker but it’s nice to be able to see the links and images now too!

One thing on my mind is that there wasn’t any movement towards a 5th gen dedicated AEA platform to replace the J-16D/EA-18G. The US from my understanding intends to use the EA-18G for initial standoff ECM to allow the F-35s to enter sections of airspace where the latter can employ their APG-81/85s.

What would you guys say is the main reason for broader spectrum ECM being ‘podified’? Is it just too difficult to integrate so many specialised AESAs for low band, high band etc. directly into a 5th gen airframe? Is it unnecessary - confidence that opposing air defences can be successfully jammed from a distance outside the detection range for these 4th gen platforms? Is it just not worth the effort?

Many thanks!

 

[Blitzo]

Thank you for approving my account Longtime lurker but it’s nice to be able to see the links and images now too!

One thing on my mind is that there wasn’t any movement towards a 5th gen dedicated AEA platform to replace the J-16D/EA-18G. The US from my understanding intends to use the EA-18G for initial standoff ECM to allow the F-35s to enter sections of airspace where the latter can employ their APG-81/85s.

What would you guys say is the main reason for broader spectrum ECM being ‘podified’? Is it just too difficult to integrate so many specialised AESAs for low band, high band etc. directly into a 5th gen airframe? Is it unnecessary - confidence that opposing air defences can be successfully jammed from a distance outside the detection range for these 4th gen platforms? Is it just not worth the effort?

Many thanks!

Welcome

First, is this the right thread? This seems more like an air force question than navy question.

As for future electronic warfare aircraft, chances are there will be a manned EW aircraft based on a 5th gen fighter in the future, but at present everyone is too busy with the higher priority task of buying enough 5th generation fighters for their regular combat fleet which incidentally have onboard suites that themselves are already very potent in terms of EW.

Think about how long it took for EA-18G to emerge after the first 4th generation fighters entered service. The gap was decades long.

Also, the EW mission in general is likely to become more distributed in nature with UAVs to take up a lot of it in the emerging future, but there is still a good chance that a 5th generation fighter will form the basis of a manned EW platform as well.


But overall it's still a bit early for a 5th gen EW platform/variant to be in active development.

 

[Deleted member 24822]

Welcome

First, is this the right thread? This seems more like an air force question than navy question.

As for future electronic warfare aircraft, chances are there will be a manned EW aircraft based on a 5th gen fighter in the future, but at present everyone is too busy with the higher priority task of buying enough 5th generation fighters for their regular combat fleet which incidentally have onboard suites that themselves are already very potent in terms of EW.

Think about how long it took for EA-18G to emerge after the first 4th generation fighters entered service. The gap was decades long.

Also, the EW mission in general is likely to become more distributed in nature with UAVs to take up a lot of it in the emerging future, but there is still a good chance that a 5th generation fighter will form the basis of a manned EW platform as well.


But overall it's still a bit early for a 5th gen EW platform/variant to be in active development.

Thanks for your thoughts! Regarding the choice of the Naval AMA thread, I guess it was from the perspective of AEA seeming like a forward strike capability that’s complemented by the range benefits of being carrier-based, and of course it’s how the US uses them. Apologies if it was better suited to the AF one, can certainly see how it could be a better fit there. Is that the likely Chinese focus for EW, territories within airbase and tanker range?

Good point on the development lag, wasn’t something I considered looking at.