Future PLAN orbat discussion

China's carrier count is a political decision. If China thinks it can deter US over Taiwan with a combination of diplomacy, economic levers, first island chain dominance, then a minor carrier force is sufficient. On other hand, if China thinks it wants to evict US entirely from Indo-Pacific via direct blue water confrontation, then carrier parity is non-negotiable. US can sit carriers outside AShBM missile ranges along the Indian ocean sealanes to choke Chinese SLOC and without the number of carriers to confront in Indian ocean, it would be GG, esp. since US has Diego Garcia and countless naval bases in Indian ocean, whereas China has none except Djoubouti. Not even Myanmar naval bases, not even Gwadar naval base, come on.

So far, my guess is, China just wants to take it's time, not in rush for war. However, just as China "suddenly" has 500 J-20's seemingly overnight, this political decision switch can see China pumping out carriers like sausage very very quickly. "China speed" is scary esp. with a larger economy and superior shipbuilding capacity.

Phead128 said:

China's carrier count is a political decision. If China thinks it can deter US over Taiwan with a combination of diplomacy, economic levers, first island chain dominance, then a minor carrier force is sufficient. On other hand, if China thinks it wants to evict US entirely from Indo-Pacific via direct blue water confrontation, then carrier parity is non-negotiable. US can sit carriers outside AShBM missile ranges along the Indian ocean sealanes to choke Chinese SLOC and without the number of carriers to confront in Indian ocean, it would be GG, esp. since US has Diego Garcia and countless naval bases in Indian ocean, whereas China has none except Djoubouti. Not even Myanmar naval bases, not even Gwadar naval base, come on.

So far, my guess is, China just wants to take it's time, not in rush for war. However, just as China "suddenly" has 500 J-20's seemingly overnight, this political decision switch can see China pumping out carriers like sausage very very quickly. "China speed" is scary esp. with a larger economy and superior shipbuilding capacity.

Click to expand...

Carrier production is not just a political decision at this time.

If you want to mass produce carriers, it helps immensely to have a mature aircraft carrier design to work with, and the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is still under construction.

---

And if you want to carriers for blue-water operations, it also helps to have modern, competitive SSNs.
We've only just seen the first boats of a new SSN class(es) being launched, so ideally, they need some time to mature before mass production.

AndrewS said:

The definition of hypersonic speed is Mach 5.
An Iskander SRBM with a 500km range already reaches Mach 6

Click to expand...

This is the level of logic you're capable of? You claim that all missiles traveling over 1,000km are hypersonic so I show you evidence that you are wrong by pointing out the subsonic 1,600km+ Tomahawk and your answer is to show me that hypersonic missiles exist?

AndrewS said:

Given the 1000km+ distance between Israel and Iran, that means large missiles were all travelling at hypersonic speeds.

Click to expand...

There is literally no logical connection to draw this obviously incorrect conclusion. Do you know how many missiles including the Tomahawk can go over 1,000km but never reach hypersonic or even supersonic speeds?? Look it up!

AndrewS said:

As for Iranian missiles, in the past 12 months, Iran fired 500+650 missiles.
But there were only 150 Arrow interceptors, plus whatever the US used. And standard practice is 2 interceptors launched for each incoming missile.

It's not that interceptors had no chance. It's that the number of incoming missiles has overwhelmed the available interceptors.

Click to expand...

You have clearly never seen a video of a hypersonic missile touching down in Israel. The interceptors might as well have been out back having a smoke given how slow and how far they were to intercepting the lightning bolt coming down.

AndrewS said:

If interceptors don't work, then why has China developed and then deployed both the HQ-19 and HQ-29?

And why is the US continuing to ramp up production of SM-3 and SM-6 if they don't work? Surely the US has gathered enough data over the past 12 months, given how many they have launched.

Click to expand...

Interceptors work better the slower and the more predictable the missile. Just because you have no reliable way to intercept a maneuvering hypersonic missile doesn't mean you stop building interceptors and make yourself a sitting duck against all supersonic and subsonic missiles too. Iran can't afford to fire all hypersonic missiles; they are very expensive and the majority of Iran's missiles are definitely not hypersonic. When one of them is used, it's a big deal.

I think you are under a misconception that all ballistic missiles that achieve a hypersonic speed at some point in their flight envelop are considered hypersonic missiles. They are not. That technology has been around for decades. When people say "hypersonic missile" in a modern military setting, talking about missiles that are almost impossible to intercept, they are not referring to that. They are referring to a relatively new class of missiles that conduct sustained maneuvering flight at hypersonic speeds and do not need to fly along high and predictable paths at any point (which is the golden oppertunity for interception).