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

Well the title should be fairly self-explanatory. Since there's so much discussion about current developments, why don't we have a discussion over where the PLAN should be going? Should it be focusing on:

Escorts?
Subs?

or building a first:

LPH?
Carrier?

Any other further comments are welcome. I'm just curious as to what you guys (n' gals?) think the priorities should be.

FuManChu said:

Well the title should be fairly self-explanatory. Since there's so much discussion about current developments, why don't we have a discussion over where the PLAN should be going? Should it be focusing on:

Escorts?
Subs?

or building a first:

LPH?
Carrier?

Any other further comments are welcome. I'm just curious as to what you guys (n' gals?) think the priorities should be.

Click to expand...

This topic comes up now and again...Humm?? I like it.

The PLAN should continue to develop indeginous ships instead of relying on Russian shipbuilders for certian types. The PLAN is doing a good job of forging ahed with shipbuilding. DDG's and FFG types ships should be the first priorty not matter how much some of want to see a PLAN CV. Number two priorty should be the PLAN submarine program which is making good strides in recent times. I think the CV will be the Varyag before the 2008 Olymipcs. Perhaps not fully operational but it will be put to sea in some capacity in my opinion.

The PLAN should concentrate on building quality ships with well trained crews. Large numbers of ships mean nothing if the ships set in port not operating.

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.

FuManChu said:

Well the title should be fairly self-explanatory. Since there's so much discussion about current developments, why don't we have a discussion over where the PLAN should be going? Should it be focusing on:

Escorts?
Subs?

or building a first:

LPH?
Carrier?

Any other further comments are welcome. I'm just curious as to what you guys (n' gals?) think the priorities should be.

Click to expand...

thare are no gals in this forum.

I think china chould continue it's current trend of developing a very quiet and capable diesel submarine force, with only a few ssn's and ssbn's. China has gained a very signifigant lead in this area compared with the rest of the nations and asia and the rest of the world, so china must do its best to keep it's edge.

As for destroyers and frigates, they must be built, but only in modest quantities. Building such ships are expensive, and china has no need to a fleet that can go around the world on call. Best focus on developing more and more advnaced models rather than mass produce a single model.

A carrier? certainly. But its not going to be varyag. China should opt to build it;s own carriers. Two types are needed:

A heavier type, roughly the size and tonnage of the Charles de gaulle(38,000 tons), and able to carry up to 40 j-10 and ka-28's. a ski jump shoudl be used if catapult technology proves too difficult. These carriers cna provide both fleet air cover and land and ship attakc abilities, giving the PLAN the ability to project on it's half of the pacific, and possibly the indian ocean. 2-3 of these carriers should be built. Building such ships, would of course, require building more DDG and FFG escorts.

A smaller model will serve as auxillary to the large carirers, or may serve to provide a degree of air cover for a group of ships, or ASW. these carriers should be closer in class the the RN invincible class. The ships may also feature som ddg weapons, such as SAMS and anti-ahip missles, making them more multi-role. up to 10 can be built.

LPH's...maybe. The tank landing ship is outdated.

I think chinese navy will have to (and will) follow the path of its paternal policyes...
Superpower status needs (or at least it needed) nuclear deterence and past have shown that a force of minium of four boats of SSBNs could do it...But china should go on for least eigth as douple patrol...

Secondly, a carrier based navy for distant invertions and power projection as well as cover the rest of the naval force for air protection...and show some bigger penis to rest of the players.. ...

varyag should be refitted emediatly and then go on for building bigger, Ulyanovsk size super carriers...or if the moneykeepers says no, a three ADS size carriers should go on for price of single CVF (british future carriers). But carriers, carriers and some more carriers...

...and offcourse a balanced surface force to escort them.

One thing that has got my eyes is that China sure makes capaple hulls but it needs to rely on imported engines and major systems. Only fileds were china truly is indegenious is pedestrial SSMs. What china needs is full covering domestical industry to provide the ships from keel to mast with chinese components. Expecially for engines and radars...

Reliance for submarine based defence navy should be left behind, its weaker opponents style...but china needs naval supermacy over Asia...subs doesent bring that.

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...

I read the above posters and I agree with KYli the most.

The first island chain remains highly contentious. Whatever ambitions China has toward the blue water, it has to maintain solid control over the littorals. Diesel electrics are the key. Migleader is right in saying that China should maintain its lead this field. Not only technologically but also by mass production of Yuans/Songs (in the way it is doing so now).

I think SSBN's and SSN's are more important than Migleader gives them credit for. No blue water navy should be without them. China will definitely need a serious force of them by 2012. It looks like China is still very far behind in quieting technology right now. Type 093 is no quieter than a los angeles class sub. China needs to improve the 093/094 or come up with a new generation design that can be arguably world-class so it can field them in substantial numbers in the 2012-2015 time frame. Goll is right.... you need about 8 SSBN's.

Like Migleader, I like what the PLAN is doing now in terms of destroyers/frigates... just building improved variants 051C/D/E to gain technology and experience without mass production. Goll is right that China has to be able to build engines too. But the pace of improvement is pretty amazing. At this rate, China should be building world class surface combatants by about 2012.

Popeye and Migleader is right in saying that Varyag is probably just going to be for training platform. China should try to have an operational carrier by 2012 and hopefully around 6 battle groups by 2020. It needs to have the training platform asap (2008 is too far away).

But I think the future of carriers are limited. When the day comes when somebody comes up with a way to terminally guide ballistic missiles against mobile targets (big, flat, slow) carriers are going to be very vulnerable. I don't think that day is very far away.

I think smaller carriers are the way to go. [I.e. like the European carriers, not American carriers.] Instead, much of the firepower should be provided by 'arsenal ships' (like DDX-style ships). The challenge for China is to improve its shipbuilding industry so that it can make its own 'DD(X)' by the 2015-2020 timeframe.

Roger604 said:

(big, flat, slow) carriers are going to be very vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Sorry, US nuclear carriers at least are anything but slow. They are among the fastest surface ships afloat when they want to be. Though they are listed at 30+ knots, people I know have indicated that they can top out at well over 45 for extended periods if they want to. This makes the ability to track and target them, much less hit them, much more difficult.

As to the rest...I too believe the Varyag is going to be operational to some degree. Too much time in the yards foir her not to come out of there under her own power in my opinion.

After making sure they have ships that can support the following logistically (meaning those logistics are really the 1st priority), I believe the priorities are subs, then DDGs, FFGs, then the carrier, then amphibs. All of them must be addressed and are all tied together for any projection and defense the PLAN wants to accomplish.

As a result of all of this, I still believe at some point in the next five years we will see something like the following at sea for the PLAN:

Sorry, US nuclear carriers at least are anything but slow. They are among the fastest surface ships afloat when they want to be. Though they are listed at 30+ knots, people I know have indicated that they can top out at well over 45 for extended periods if they want to. This makes the ability to track and target them, much less hit them, much more difficult

Click to expand...

This is an excellent thread. Great responses by all.

I think smaller carriers are the way to go. [I.e. like the European carriers, not American carriers.]

Click to expand...

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. The below picture is of the Nimitz itself undergoing sea trials in November 1990 after a 1+ year re-fit. How do I know? I was on the Nimitz a month later and this picture graces the cruise book(year book) And I know sailors that were onboard during these high speed manuvers. It is known by all hands onboard that the ship was going in excess of 35 knots when it negoiated this turn. That day off the Northwest Pacific coast the Nimitz made some classified speeds and manuvers in the range of what Jeff posted. Because a Nimitz class nuclear powered it can remain at these high speeds indefentiely. A Nimitz class can "outrun" it's entire battle group. Fact. I know I was there.

China appears to be mastering radar and C-31 systems quite well frankly. Whatever gaps they have on their indigenous designs, they have plugged by reverse engineering Russian designs like the Bandstand and Top Plate radars. The 052C arrays and its surface search radar (top of the mast) shows you how far gone China has gone into naval radars.

The engines is more of a question mark as they seem to be reliant in so called "imported" engines. I put the quotation marks because so called imported engines are actually made in China by foreign firms. This is especially with regards to diesel engines for subs and CODAGs for the larger ships.

Goll makes a good point on this one

Reliance for submarine based defence navy should be left behind, its weaker opponents style...but china needs naval supermacy over Asia...subs doesent bring that.

Click to expand...

One does question however if the Teddy Roosevelt style of showing a big stick to all of China's Asian neighbors is of political benefit.

China as a policy seems much more interested in portraying itself as an underdog and a "peaceful" neighbor by always constantly understating its military. The best remains hidden, no roadmaps are ever given in public, kind of like a poker player hiding ace cards. The propaganda is useless because they only like to show people in parade and hardly ever new stuff---not like the monumental 1999 parade where the PLA actually revealed all sorts of new hardware like the ZTZ-98 tank for the first time. China appears to be very sensitive about criticisms of its miltary modernizations.

Having said this, the argument that it is now or never that China should learn to field a carrier. It is currently the only one in the UN security council without one. Was this because of a change in leadership? After much interest in carriers in the nineties, the pro sub faction in the PLAN took over, placed carrier studies into hiatus and concentrated on subs, albeit with much surface ship support. The so called phased expansion of the PLAN from green water to blue water navy envisioned in the nineties was tabled for a green navy with an underwater sucker punch. All that time, JZM seemed to be making that war with Taiwan was imminent.

Change of leadership again, and JZM is out of the CMC. That is a profound development for the entire PLA. The PLA now appears letting go of a myopic attitude of preparing for an imminent conflict with Taiwan in the near future, for longer term and more grandoise plans of developing its technological base. Back to the 1990s vision. But then with civilians and technocrats so much in charge, every new generation of Chinese leadership isn't going to have a militaristic worldview and of China's future, though they will insist they will do everything to protect China's homelands and prosperity.

This is always a tough loggerhead question as to why China should field a carrier. Many Chinese do not beleive China should do it, while others do. There is quite an opinion split here, and I bet it also reflects what is inside the CCP and PLA leaders too.

shoot, this thing looks like it's going to flip over. Lol, the nuclear reactor on these things can probably power a couple of cities.

Back on topic:
What China needs:
1. ASW frigate/destroyer platform
2. AAW frigate
3. quieter SSKs
4. more LPDs (on top the current one still in construction)
5. better torpedo + sonar technology
6. continuously improve the "Chinese Aegis" software and build more such DDGs to create more of an integrated air defense system
7. domestic engines for DDGs and FFGs

btw Crobato, so 052C is not using band stand at all, but rather a domestic copy?