Future PLAN orbat discussion

ZeEa5KPul said:

How many 100,000+ ton Chinese supercarriers do you think is "balanced"? Suppose the US stays with its 11 and China's economy hits all its expected milestones (2x US economy in PPP by ~2030, fully developed by 2050), so no untoward economic constraints.

Click to expand...

Pop3 mentioned a while back that he thought the PLAN was planning over 10 carriers (no specific timeline) when referencing some discussions about how many carriers the PLAN may seek by 2035.

I personally would be in cautious agreement with that and think that is a necessary force.

ZeEa5KPul said:

How many 100,000+ ton Chinese supercarriers do you think is "balanced"? Suppose the US stays with its 11 and China's economy hits all its expected milestones (2x US economy in PPP by ~2030, fully developed by 2050), so no untoward economic constraints.

Click to expand...

I think China's planned carrier force size would be reactionary to how many carrier forces the US is willing to designate specifically for the purpose of countering China.

This is because China is aiming for a balanced and anti-hegemonic way of co-existence with its neighbors and the other countries. If China start churning out many more carriers than what the US is putting in charge of countering China, what would end up happening is that the other countries in the region would be very scared and confused of what China has in mind.

I am personally against China quickly churning out 10 or 12 super-carriers from now on, because people will be wondering what exactly are those for, when the US (the only perceived naval rival/adversary of China) can only designate a (large) fraction of their own carriers for the task of countering China. For example if the US only designates 7 carriers in the Indo-Pacific regions for countering China and China has 12, this would make it very easy for the US to win over regional countries simply by telling them that China is over powering everyone combined for the purpose of invading everyone. If these countries buy into that (which they will very likely do if China has 10-12 super carriers), their fear of China would put them on the same boat with the US, which would be very bad for China.

And even for those countries who won't ever want to be in USA's boat and won't ever believe that China is a threat to them, the fact that China have 10-12 super carrier just to counter 6-7 US supercarriers would actually cast doubt on the PLA's capability and loses confidence in them. The PLA has always been keen on giving out the vibe of an over-performing underdog: “小米加步枪战胜了坚船利炮” (Millet plus rifle overcoming cannons and warships); basically someone who look weak, shabby and outdated but was actually much stronger than they look.

And one other important metric you guy didn't think about is arms export. Which is one of the reasons I advocated for 4 class 003 conventional carriers. China can sell those to friendly powerful nations that lack a bit of potent shipbuilding capabilities. Let say Iran or Pakistan, or even Russia (if they ever find the wisdom to get down from their high horse) in the future. In this way China not only greatly expanded her military influence, leverage and weight in the world, but also keep a humble front in which they don't cause unnecessary concern in countries that don't know what is going on with China owning much more super carriers than needed to counter the USA.

ZeEa5KPul said:

How many 100,000+ ton Chinese supercarriers do you think is "balanced"? Suppose the US stays with its 11 and China's economy hits all its expected milestones (2x US economy in PPP by ~2030, fully developed by 2050), so no untoward economic constraints.

Click to expand...

What I think is a likely plan for China now, is to keep on churning out carriers at a moderate pace, but be very conscious about keeping the commissioned PLAN super carriers at a number specifically pegged against the US carrier force size in the Indo-pacific region. For example, if the US put 60% of its naval forces in the Indo-Pacific, China should put about 6-7 carriers into PLAN commission, and building more to replace existing ones. The carriers that got replaced should be aggressively and proactively marketed and sold/transfered to capable friendly nations. This is what I think should happen in the next 15 years, through to 2035. Of course, this would mean that the PLAN would have 4 type 003 conventional powered carriers.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

I think China's planned carrier force size would be reactionary to how many carrier forces the US is willing to designate specifically for the purpose of countering China.

This is because China is aiming for a balanced and anti-hegemonic way of co-existence with its neighbors and the other countries. If China start churning out many more carriers than what the US is putting in charge of countering China, what would end up happening is that the other countries in the region would be very scared and confused of what China has in mind.

I am personally against China quickly churning out 10 or 12 super-carriers from now on, because people will be wondering what exactly are those for, when the US (the only perceived naval rival/adversary of China) can only designate a (large) fraction of their own carriers for the task of countering China. For example if the US only designates 7 carriers in the Indo-Pacific regions for countering China and China has 12, this would make it very easy for the US to win over regional countries simply by telling them that China is over powering everyone combined for the purpose of invading everyone. If these countries buy into that (which they will very likely do if China has 10-12 super carriers), their fear of China would put them on the same boat with the US, which would be very bad for China.

And even for those countries who won't ever want to be in USA's boat and won't ever believe that China is a threat to them, the fact that China have 10-12 super carrier just to counter 6-7 US supercarriers would actually cast doubt on the PLA's capability and loses confidence in them. The PLA has always been keen on giving out the vibe of an over-performing underdog: “小米加步枪战胜了坚船利炮” (Millet plus rifle overcoming cannons and warships); basically someone who look weak, shabby and outdated but was actually much stronger than they look.

And one other important metric you guy didn't think about is arms export. Which is one of the reasons I advocated for 4 class 003 conventional carriers. China can sell those to friendly powerful nations that lack a bit of potent shipbuilding capabilities. Let say Iran or Pakistan, or even Russia (if they ever find the wisdom to get down from their high horse) in the future. In this way China not only greatly expanded her military influence, leverage and weight in the world, but also keep a humble front in which they don't cause unnecessary concern in countries that don't know what is going on with China owning much more super carriers than needed to counter the USA.

Click to expand...

I think the answer to your question is that eventually the US Navy will have to reassign all its carriers to the Indo-Pacific.

We've seen this happen in the past when the reigning global navy concentrates its forces when there is a credible challenge to its naval supremacy.

Plus China exporting large 003 carriers is not going to happen. Even Russia struggles to afford a single carrier, never mind any other potential customer.

Bltizo said:

Assuming that there is no direct US intervention during those weeks or 3 months, what makes you believe that the US wouldn't wage a war during or after a presumably a successful victory say, over Taiwan?
There's nothing stopping the US from waging months or years of blockade and long range strikes even after a Chinese victory over Taiwan (again, assuming no US intervention in the first place), seeking to gradually wear down PLA naval forces in the region and air forces and air defenses in the region, and then to launch larger scale strikes afterwards, to reverse Chinese gains.

Click to expand...

That assumes the USA has the military strength and resolve to reverse Chinese gains in Taiwan or South Korea for example.

You're talking about the US conducting a successful amphibious invasion of Taiwan or South Korea, in the face of an entrenched Chinese Army. And suppose a political settlement is agreed between China-Taiwan or China-South Korea. Remember these countries are approaching a situation where their exports to China are more important than to the rest of the world combined.

So what political goal would the US achieve in continuing a war?

Putting it another way -- I believe the US absolutely may have the luxury of time, and the PLA should be orienting its procurement strategy and future military strategy to account for it as a real possibility.
There's no reason to believe that the US would not have the political resolve to seek to reverse Chinese gains or to wage a longer term conflict. Along similar lines, the prospect of US intervention would also be a real and present consideration for PLA procurement strategy as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not discounting the possibility of a long-drawn out war.
But China pursuing a symmetric strategy in building a navy for blue water air/sea control will take at least 15-20 years.

There is no realistic way to drastically speed this up even with significant extra funding, because the carriers and carrier aircraft need another 5-10 years of development time.

So realistically from a technical and budgetary point of view, it's better to spend the next 10 years on producing platforms that leverage mainland Chinese bases, whilst developing blue-water naval capabilities so they are mature and ready for mass-production.

AndrewS said:

I think the answer to your question is that eventually the US Navy will have to reassign all its carriers to the Indo-Pacific.

We've seen this happen in the past when the reigning global navy concentrates its forces when there is a credible challenge to its naval supremacy.

Plus China exporting large 003 carriers is not going to happen. Even Russia struggles to afford a single carrier, never mind any other potential customer.

Click to expand...

That would play right into the hands of Chinese long terms strategy. Because China's real vulnerability is in Central Asia and South Xinjiang (Kashmir, Afghanistan direction). These are the lang bridge between China and the Middle East. If the US will eventually put all its naval forces in the Indo-Pacific, it will significantly weaken the US's control and presence over the Middle East, Europe and Africa. And it will legitimize China's naval build up, while also minimize the threat against China's plans in Central Asia, CPEC, and connect to the Middle East through to Europe. Therefore, the US will have to at least destroy and conquer Iran, before she can safely move all her naval forces to the Indo-Pacific.

China has no problem building a lot of powerful warships to counter the US navy. What China has problem with is the fact that China has to be a trading nation (it has a significant demand for raw materials and foreign market at the same time), and trading nations need to maintain a peaceful and non-threatening posture to everyone. This means that any excessive military power (power without clear and legitimate purpose and target) will hurt that image and cast fear and doubt in other small nations contemplating on deepening their trade relations with China.

In fact, by becoming militarily aggressive towards China, the US is actually helping China to put its neighbor at ease. They were afraid that China's war power are aimed at them, now the US steps in, they will be relieved that the US will draw the majority of China' war power towards the US. This would make these country more confident and at ease to trade with China. So it is a bad move by the US. In fact, you could say that every so-called "restabilizing actions” by the USA's show of force in the region, will actually benefit China. What the US actually need is to stay away and make those nations feel "unprotected" and fearful of China's military power. And then, these nations will come crawling to the US, begging for protection and assurance. And China, in order to assure these nations, will need to cap her military development, deployment and expansion.

In fact, I would say that the assurance of safety to these small nations is something the US should intentionally ambiguously deny. The more these small nations are assured of their safety in dealing with China (because they have the US at their back), the more bold and comfortable they will be at enlarging and deepening their trade relations with China. If the US military stayed away, these countries will be more cautious, and they will also more actively solicit US help and involvement.

Just look at Singapore. Before the US's pivot to Asia, Singapore was always very suspicious of China, calling for US intervention and attention to the region. Right after the US actually pivoted to Asia, Singapore start criticizing the US a lot more. This is a typical petty person's mentality.

AndrewS said:

I think the answer to your question is that eventually the US Navy will have to reassign all its carriers to the Indo-Pacific.

We've seen this happen in the past when the reigning global navy concentrates its forces when there is a credible challenge to its naval supremacy.

Plus China exporting large 003 carriers is not going to happen. Even Russia struggles to afford a single carrier, never mind any other potential customer.

Click to expand...

Russia has no budgetary problem operating 2 or even 3 nuclear super carriers. Let alone type 003. What Russia has a problem with, is to come up with an industrial bases that can successful develop and produce all the subsystems as well as putting them altogether. If China is willing to sell the 003 at only a small premium over its cost, as well as setting up joint ventures with Russian industry to transfer some of the tech to Russia so that Russia can operate, maintain, fix and upgrade the type 003 independently. The only thing China would lose is a fat sum of profit in selling a strategic piece of equipment. But the gain is an even greater geopolitical reward, enabling Russian navy to have a surface force capable enough to contend with a US task force of the same size.

However, it is possible the Russian will not be willing to take up the 003, they seems to want nuclear super carrier instead.

As for Iran and Pakistan, I don't see why they can't operate one modified Liaoning or Shandong (modified to be CATOBAR with two catapult, and rid of the ramp). If China is willing to give up making a big profit on selling them, and do some tech transfer via joint venture. It will also deepen the relations between the military industry between China and Iran/Pakistan.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

That would play right into the hands of Chinese long terms strategy. Because China's real vulnerability is in Central Asia and South Xinjiang (Kashmir, Afghanistan direction). These are the lang bridge between China and the Middle East. If the US will eventually put all its naval forces in the Indo-Pacific, it will significantly weaken the US's control and presence over the Middle East, Europe and Africa. And it will legitimize China's naval build up, while also minimize the threat against China's plans in Central Asia, CPEC, and connect to the Middle East through to Europe. Therefore, the US will have to at least destroy and conquer Iran, before she can safely move all her naval forces to the Indo-Pacific.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think Central Asia and South Xinjiang is China's real vulnerability.
I actually think they are secure from the Chinese perspective.

China has no problem building a lot of powerful warships to counter the US navy. What China has problem with is the fact that China has to be a trading nation (it has a significant demand for raw materials and foreign market at the same time), and trading nations need to maintain a peaceful and non-threatening posture to everyone. This means that any excessive military power (power without clear and legitimate purpose and target) will hurt that image and cast fear and doubt in other small nations contemplating on deepening their trade relations with China.

Click to expand...

The smaller nations in ASEAN rightly see China as both an opportunity AND a threat, depending on what aspect of the relationship is involved.

I would actually argue that excessive Chinese military power does not hurt relations with small nations who want a deeper trade relationship.

Note that China is the world's largest trading nation, sits at the centre of the Asian trade network, and also has ASEAN as a larger trading partner than the USA. So the growth of Chinese seapower and airpower means China is better able to defend China's trade and the global trading system against the US military. From that standpoint, a stronger Chinese military means trade relations with China are more secure than with the USA.

The key thing is that Chinese aircraft and ships can't conquer and hold territory.
And that China doesn't share a land border or has settled its land borders with its ASEAN neighbours, so they don't feel that the Chinese Army will be used against them, unless they join an anti-China military alliance.

So a larger Chinese military also deters the smaller ASEAN nations from joining any anti-China military alliance that the USA wants to create.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

Russia has no budgetary problem operating 2 or even 3 nuclear super carriers. Let alone type 003. What Russia has a problem with, is to come up with an industrial bases that can successful develop and produce all the subsystems as well as putting them altogether. If China is willing to sell the 003 at only a small premium over its cost, as well as setting up joint ventures with Russian industry to transfer some of the tech to Russia so that Russia can operate, maintain, fix and upgrade the type 003 independently. The only thing China would lose is a fat sum of profit in selling a strategic piece of equipment. But the gain is an even greater geopolitical reward, enabling Russian navy to have a surface force capable enough to contend with a US task force of the same size.

However, it is possible the Russian will not be willing to take up the 003, they seems to want nuclear super carrier instead.

As for Iran and Pakistan, I don't see why they can't operate one modified Liaoning or Shandong (modified to be CATOBAR with two catapult, and rid of the ramp). If China is willing to give up making a big profit on selling them, and do some tech transfer via joint venture. It will also deepen the relations between the military industry between China and Iran/Pakistan.

Click to expand...

Russia's military spending is already at 3.9% of GDP, which is really high.
Yet the Russian military cannot credibly win a long land war in Europe, and would need more money in order to achieve this primary goal.

Russia doesn't have the budget to spend on 2 nuclear super carriers and the associated escorts and airwing.

A similar calculation is at work with Iran/Pakistan operating carriers.
Why would Pakistan want carriers when the Pakistan Air Force is already outnumbered by the Indian Air Force on their land border?
And Iran would struggle to control its own airspace, so why would they want to operate carriers in distant seas?

AndrewS said:

I don't understand why you think Central Asia and South Xinjiang is China's real vulnerability.
I actually think they are secure from the Chinese perspective.

Click to expand...

Oh, okey, uhm, this is quite complicated, it will take me a long time and a lot of effort to explain. So I won't be bothered, I will just give you some hint.
Have you ever heard of "中国地形的三大阶梯"? Check out relevant Chinese articles and books about how the "三大阶梯" relate to the strategic national security of China. China's highest priority core safety/security is her ecological security/safety （生态安全）.