Future PLAN carrier operations

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #301
there is a persistent myth that China only seeks minimum defence & is building all of those dozens of DDGs in addition to the 1 aircraft carrier per 3 years just to secure the South China sea & nothing more, but the thing is China doesn't only do trade with the islands in the SCS but it does trade with countries as far as Africa & latin America & they as an economic superpower need to provide security for these trade routes, ofcourse I don't mean security against Pirates but security against America's carrier groups & nuclear submarines, and for that achieving parity with at least 70% of US armed forces is needed.

China is producing DDGs at an insane rate of like double that of US production yet some people still refuse to admit that China wants maximum defence not minimum defence, any one who has been following the PLAN's buildup would realize... the PLAN is not content with being cornered in the immediate seas & wants to be king of the oceans, so that they can send carrier strike groups to America's west & east cost.
I agree with this one completely, and all PLAN actions when extrapolated points to this. However, choice between using nuclear or conventionally powered carriers are still separate issues, and its possible to attain ocean hegemony even with conventional carriers.

I would rather put more money into nuclear submarines instead.
 

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #302
Oh, for god's sake, it's Minnie Chan. She has no sources, no inside information, nothing. Everything she says is completely worthless, absolutely everything without exception. She is the definition of fake news. China's aircraft carrier construction schedule is what it was yesterday, a month ago, a year ago, a decade ago. Nothing's changed.

I'm convinced she does this on purpose. She's been writing about the Chinese military long enough know that everything she's written has been proved incorrect and concluded that 1) her sources are garbage and 2) she doesn't know what she's talking about. I'm going to assume she has at least enough intelligence and self-awareness to have picked up on that, so the only conclusion that remains is that she's deliberately trolling.
Minnie Chan is National Interest level of journalism. Meaning full garbage.

Reasons for fielding or not fielding a nuclear powered carrier would be independent of such articles, and that is up to the PLAN, XJP and the Politburo. There are logical reasons to have and to have not. I won't be surprised if they made choices for one or the other.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
there is a persistent myth that China only seeks minimum defence & is building all of those dozens of DDGs in addition to the 1 aircraft carrier per 3 years just to secure the South China sea & nothing more, but the thing is China doesn't only do trade with the islands in the SCS but it does trade with countries as far as Africa & latin America & they as an economic superpower need to provide security for these trade routes, ofcourse I don't mean security against Pirates but security against America's carrier groups & nuclear submarines, and for that achieving parity with at least 70% of US armed forces is needed.

China is producing DDGs at an insane rate of like double that of US production yet some people still refuse to admit that China wants maximum defence not minimum defence, any one who has been following the PLAN's buildup would realize... the PLAN is not content with being cornered in the immediate seas & wants to be king of the oceans, so that they can send carrier strike groups to America's west & east cost.
Just one point.

China building the equivalent of 70% of the US military implies a fleet of 70 DDGs.
There are already 40 Chinese DDGs, so China continuing to build 6+ DDGs per year means there will be a crash halt in Chinese DDG production in just 5 years time.

Hence my view that DDG production is going to moderate to 3-4 DDGs per year and that the Chinese Navy will be at least equivalent to the US Navy.

Also that such a Chinese Navy would be lighter on aircraft carriers and heavier on surface ships and submarines, because they can rely land-based aircraft and missiles within the 1st and 2nd island chain, which is where any conflict will be won or lost.
 

obj 705A

New Member
Registered Member
I don't want to go back too much into this issue of fake news from Minnie Chan but any way, regarding the "insiders" that she keeps on quoting, there are three possibilites:-
1-she has no sources & she is simply lying.
2-the "insiders" are the janitors cleaning the sidewalks opposite the headquarters of the defense ministry.
3-she does actually have an insider, but the insider doesn't actually like her so he keeps on trolling her by giving her false information, imagine if you were in the PLA & some annoying China hating journalist keeps on asking you for information, you might as well troll her with false ones.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
In active defense of Taiwan in case China launches landing on Taiwan, US very likely to use its SSN to launch attacks on mainland military targets including airfields.
If China Eastern coast military airfields got destroyed, then it's imperative have enough carriers to host large number of airplanes.

At least Six carriers needed. Two at hainan, three at East fleet to support Taiwan operation if needed. One at North Fleet.

4 carriers is not enough
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
In active defense of Taiwan in case China launches landing on Taiwan, US very likely to use its SSN to launch attacks on mainland military targets including airfields.
If China Eastern coast military airfields got destroyed, then it's imperative have enough carriers to host large number of airplanes.

At least Six carriers needed. Two at hainan, three at East fleet to support Taiwan operation if needed. One at North Fleet.

4 carriers is not enough
From a fiscal and labour point of view, ground based air fields are both cheaper and faster to build than carriers, a simple runway and basic supporting infrastructures can be build in a single day depending on the location.
And a airfield is far more resistant from being rendered ineffective than a carrier.
 

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #307
From a fiscal and labour point of view, ground based air fields are both cheaper and faster to build than carriers, a simple runway and basic supporting infrastructures can be build in a single day depending on the location.
And a airfield is far more resistant from being rendered ineffective than a carrier.
However, air fields are also far easier to target. While air fields are also far easier to repair, they are also far easier to be repeatedly targeted again.
 

Dante80

New Member
Registered Member
I'm willing to guess that this kind of argument is very low (if even existent) as far as PLAN priorities and planning go with regards to its carrier force. An aircraft carrier is predominantly a means/vessel of air-force projection outside the domestic umbrella, not a Durandal fail-safe. It can surely function as one but it is not constructed with that in mind. :D
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
However, air fields are also far easier to target. While air fields are also far easier to repair, they are also far easier to be repeatedly targeted again.
When you can build multiple airfields to a single carrier, the issue of them getting knocked out is actually not that serious considering one can spread out the damage. That is what the idea of redundancy is.
 

Tam

Captain
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #310
When you can build multiple airfields to a single carrier, the issue of them getting knocked out is actually not that serious considering one can spread out the damage. That is what the idea of redundancy is.
Yes, but building multiple airfields isn't as easy as you think, because of various societal issues. You are going to run into government roadblocks, social opposition, inter government opposition, or opposition because someone already owns that land. If you are building air bases in other countries, you are only allowed to build such in this number based on this agreement and so on. You cannot just find a piece of land and decide you want to build an air base on it.
 
Top