Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS said:

The original point was that China should be content with just 6 aircraft carriers.

That defacto means leaving the US military in control of the air-sea beyond the Second Island Chain.
And that provides secure enough basing in the Third Island Chain for the US to launch attacks on mainland China.

It's not about Chinese territorial expansion, because sea-air control over the ocean is always temporary and relies on having ships in the area.

It's about preventing the USA from projecting military power to mainland China.

Click to expand...

In a WW3 scenario if Russia allows China to use their territory, the PLA-rocket force can launch DF-27 missiles from Eastern Siberia. With an 8,000km range from that position the PLA-RF can hit any position within the CONUS. Also any US navy ship or airbase within the Northern Pacific ocean is within firing range of the DF-27. Every US factory that produces military hardware can be targeted. The DF-27 can hit any US navy ship or aircraft while it's still under construction in the shipyard / factory.

The US can have "control of the air-sea beyond the Second Island Chain" all it wants. What good is it if the PLA-RF can hit anything between Shanghai all the way to New York city?
Hopefully the situation never escalates to this level.
Like I said before China doesn't need more than 6 aircraft carriers.
However China definitely needs a lot more DF-27s

AndrewS said:

It's not about American aircraft carriers striking mainland China. But they prevent the Chinese military from projecting much power beyond the Second Island Chain.

That means bases in the Third Island Chain are pretty secure, so long-range stealth bombers can launch standoff missiles (1000km+ range) at Mainland China.

It also means an air bridge can be maintained from Alaska to Japan. So missiles can be launched safely from Japanese airspace or from the Japanese Home Islands, which is within 1000km of China.

To prevent this, China would need to interpose carriers between Alaska and Japan. And such a Chinese carrier force would be too far for much land-based air support.

Click to expand...

You said this: "If China stops at 6 aircraft carriers, then the US can contain China within the Second Island Chain and conduct sustained long range air attacks against Mainland China."

To me, you meant that the US can use carriers to strike China and China would not be able to stop them because we would need carriers to meet those carriers.

Long range stealth bombers can take off from the US and strike anywhere as long as they're not shot down. Interception between Japan and Alaska does not need an aircraft carrier; a strong destroyer+submarine group can do it as long as their missile package is too much for an American carrier to contend with (you don't need a carrier or an ASBM to stop a carrier; multiple destroyers with SAMs and hypersonic missiles is going to stop a carrier from encroaching). Also, we are currently equipped to deal with missiles launched from Japan by launching many many missiles back at Japan.

I said that China would need carriers to defeat the US in global power projection, but not really self defense. In terms of limited regional fights in the middle east, etc... carriers and airwing are extremely useful, but when it's 2 superpowers trying to rip each other's heads off directly, not so much. If that's not too far from what you mean, good.

AndrewS said:

Consider how in terms of major Air Force and Naval platforms, every year, China is already buying "twice (or more)" as the US.
Given enough time, that translates into a Navy and Air Force twice the size.

---

Also, consider what should the China military buy with an extra 1% of GDP ($200 Billion)?

Click to expand...

I'll just make the point i've made in the past, that extra money could be used to reach parity in the areas China is still critically behind, namely carriers, nuclear subs and ICBMs/nuclear warheads.

As far as PLAN, the recent SSN developments are encouraging, but as production is conditioned by money for the infrastructure/shipyards and the ships/weapons themselves, that extra money not only could guarantee building SSN/SSBNs at a high rate (they launched 3 SSN this half year so far, would there be more launched by the end of 2026? reference has been made of US launching up to 7 nuclear subs a year in the 1980s), but also build up the carrier fleet just as the US claims/expect anyway (9 by 2035, which given current observed PLAN construction rate just doesn't seem possible, they need at least 2 being built simultaneously and occasionally 3, they do have the shipyards/drydocks for that).

And a quick comment on the issue of China avoiding conflict, how long can they can keep doing that? They can't just keep avoiding the US forever, which is not even hiding it's intentions to destroy China, at one point they have to turn around and face them head on, and China would be much more confident in facing them if they'd have parity or even superiority in the major combat/strategic systems. This makes it that more likely US will back down, which is the best outcome China wants, avoiding open conflict, and doing so in it's own terms.

So more money for defence means less likelihood for open conflict, and less likelihood of China's rise being hindered.

mack8 said:

I'll just make the point i've made in the past, that extra money could be used to reach parity in the areas China is still critically behind, namely carriers, nuclear subs and ICBMs/nuclear warheads. As far as PLAN, the recent SSN developments are encouraging, but as production is conditioned by money for the infrastructure/shipyards and the ships/weapons themselves, that extra money not only could guarantee building SSN/SSBNs at a high rate (they launched 3 SSN this half year so far, would there be more launched by the end of 2026? reference has been made of US launching up to 7 nuclear subs a year in the 1980s), but also build up the carrier fleet just as the US claims/expect anyway (9 by 2035, which given current observed PLAN construction rate just doesn't seem possible, they need at least 2 being built simultaneously and occasionally 3, they do have the shipyards/drydocks for that).

Click to expand...

The PRC and USA have slightly different geostrategic environments and also slightly different internal strengths and weaknesses, so the list of priorities (in context of overall economic and industrial opportunity cost) for military expenditure will also differ -- i.e.: parity with the US is misleading and probably not a useful construct to project PLA and PLAN procurement on

This isn't to say that the PRC will not seek to procure a large fleet of carriers in the medium and long term, but what it does mean is perhaps in context of their national strategy and in their most pressing concerns, that they aren't prioritized as acutely as other things and there is no reason to think the US fleet size is a threshold goal for them.

charles18 said:

In a WW3 scenario if Russia allows China to use their territory, the PLA-rocket force can launch DF-27 missiles from Eastern Siberia. With an 8,000km range from that position the PLA-RF can hit any position within the CONUS. Also any US navy ship or airbase within the Northern Pacific ocean is within firing range of the DF-27. Every US factory that produces military hardware can be targeted. The DF-27 can hit any US navy ship or aircraft while it's still under construction in the shipyard / factory.

The US can have "control of the air-sea beyond the Second Island Chain" all it wants. What good is it if the PLA-RF can hit anything between Shanghai all the way to New York city?
Hopefully the situation never escalates to this level.
Like I said before China doesn't need more than 6 aircraft carriers.
However China definitely needs a lot more DF-27s

Click to expand...

I really doubt that Russia will allow Chinese missiles to be launched from Eastern Siberia.

And DF-27 missiles are very expensive. There won't be enough for a sustained campaign.

manqiangrexue said:

You said this: "If China stops at 6 aircraft carriers, then the US can contain China within the Second Island Chain and conduct sustained long range air attacks against Mainland China."

To me, you meant that the US can use carriers to strike China and China would not be able to stop them because we would need carriers to meet those carriers.

Long range stealth bombers can take off from the US and strike anywhere as long as they're not shot down. Interception between Japan and Alaska does not need an aircraft carrier; a strong destroyer+submarine group can do it as long as their missile package is too much for an American carrier to contend with (you don't need a carrier or an ASBM to stop a carrier; multiple destroyers with SAMs and hypersonic missiles is going to stop a carrier from encroaching). Also, we are currently equipped to deal with missiles launched from Japan by launching many many missiles back at Japan.

I said that China would need carriers to defeat the US in global power projection, but not really self defense. In terms of limited regional fights in the middle east, etc... carriers and airwing are extremely useful, but when it's 2 superpowers trying to rip each other's heads off directly, not so much. If that's not too far from what you mean, good.

Click to expand...

Stealth bombers taking off from CONUS still need airborne refueling to reach China. If the Chinese military can prevent tanker aircraft from being based in Alaska or the 3IC, then bombers can't reach Mainland China.

A Chinese surface action group by itself between Japan and Alaska has no air cover. Repeated attacks (from Alaska based bombers or carrier groups) with missiles mean they will be destroyed. The short range of the SAMs also means aircraft can easily fly around the ships.

An aircraft carrier is needed to survive incoming air attacks and to blockade Japan. But again, the carrier being on the defensive would be a losing proposition due to repeated air attacks. It would be better for the carrier group to attack the airbase in Alaska to remove the bombers based there.

You can apply a similar logic to the bases in Hawaii and Australia.

That would require China to build a significantly larger carrier force than the US Navy has.

mack8 said:

I'll just make the point i've made in the past, that extra money could be used to reach parity in the areas China is still critically behind, namely carriers, nuclear subs and ICBMs/nuclear warheads.

As far as PLAN, the recent SSN developments are encouraging, but as production is conditioned by money for the infrastructure/shipyards and the ships/weapons themselves, that extra money not only could guarantee building SSN/SSBNs at a high rate (they launched 3 SSN this half year so far, would there be more launched by the end of 2026? reference has been made of US launching up to 7 nuclear subs a year in the 1980s), but also build up the carrier fleet just as the US claims/expect anyway (9 by 2035, which given current observed PLAN construction rate just doesn't seem possible, they need at least 2 being built simultaneously and occasionally 3, they do have the shipyards/drydocks for that).

And a quick comment on the issue of China avoiding conflict, how long can they can keep doing that? They can't just keep avoiding the US forever, which is not even hiding it's intentions to destroy China, at one point they have to turn around and face them head on, and China would be much more confident in facing them if they'd have parity or even superiority in the major combat/strategic systems. This makes it that more likely US will back down, which is the best outcome China wants, avoiding open conflict, and doing so in it's own terms.

So more money for defence means less likelihood for open conflict, and less likelihood of China's rise being hindered.

Click to expand...

On SSNs, ideally you would want 1-2 years to test out the designs in the real world, fix the mistakes and then ramp up production.

The same applies to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier under construction.

---

On how long China can avoid a war with the US, I think China can avoid this entirely.

China's current leverage on rare earths will last at least another 5 years. And in the coming years, we will see even more leverage and chokeholds, given the rate and scale of Chinese technology advancement.

Shenzhen is the most technologically advanced city in the world by far, and developments there will spread first to other cities in China, then overseas.

I would agree that with a stronger Chinese military, it becomes more attractive to invest in China or depend on Chinese technology and supply chains.

For example, if the Chinese Navy can protect China's global trade, then there is no risk of a US blockade of Chinese factories. So you might as well rely more on Chinese factories.

Note that this would require China to build a significantly larger Navy than the US.

AndrewS said:

Stealth bombers taking off from CONUS still need airborne refueling to reach China. If the Chinese military can prevent tanker aircraft from being based in Alaska or the 3IC, then bombers can't reach Mainland China.

Click to expand...

Alaska is a big big place for you to intercept a stealth bomber from. An aircraft carrier is not going to be able to blockade stealth flights out of Alaska.

AndrewS said:

A Chinese surface action group by itself between Japan and Alaska has no air cover. Repeated attacks (from Alaska based bombers or carrier groups) with missiles mean they will be destroyed. The short range of the SAMs also means aircraft can easily fly around the ships.

An aircraft carrier is needed to survive incoming air attacks and to blockade Japan. But again, the carrier being on the defensive would be a losing proposition due to repeated air attacks. It would be better for the carrier group to attack the airbase in Alaska to remove the bombers based there.

You can apply a similar logic to the bases in Hawaii and Australia.

That would require China to build a significantly larger carrier force than the US Navy has.

Click to expand...

An aircraft carrier is also not going to survive when you're putting it in striking range of ground bases. Aircraft carriers are for bullying smaller weaker nations, but never ever use your carrier to fight within ground striking range of a peer military. Destroyers with hypersonic missiles can potentially sink an enemy carrier; carriers were capable of taking massive damage in WWII but the power of munitions has far outgrown the power of armor, meaning you are putting a ton of people and equipment on a very large target so you better already have dominance before you send a carrier in.

Carriers are not for peer fights anymore; they are for peer contests that are limited (such as power projection contest where both countries are restrained not to start WWIII by sinking rival carriers) and for bullying inferior countries. If you are in a war with the US where it has escalated to striking US territory, you better do it with ballistic missiles fired either directly from China or from more survivable platforms like submarines or disposable platforms like fake container ships. We would really be threading on the edge of nuclear war if we are hitting each other like that and in that situation, the carriers on both sides would be in grave danger from getting one-shotted by missiles, particularly American carriers cus this is what China has been planning for decades.

manqiangrexue said:

Alaska is a big big place for you to intercept a stealth bomber from. An aircraft carrier is not going to be able to blockade stealth flights out of Alaska.

Click to expand...

A Chinese aircraft carrier between Japan and Alaska would have multiple functions:

1. Prevent cargo aircraft from reaching Japan
2. Prevent ships reaching Japan
3. Prevent airborne refuelling aircraft from enabling bombers to overfly Japan, and then launch missiles.

manqiangrexue said:

An aircraft carrier is also not going to survive when you're putting it in striking range of ground bases. Aircraft carriers are for bullying smaller weaker nations, but never ever use your carrier to fight within ground striking range of a peer military. Destroyers with hypersonic missiles can potentially sink an enemy carrier; carriers were capable of taking massive damage in WWII but the power of munitions has far outgrown the power of armor, meaning you are putting a ton of people and equipment on a very large target so you better already have dominance before you send a carrier in.

Click to expand...

There is only a single, isolated airbase located in Alaska, so a Chinese aircraft carrier force could have enough aircraft to conduct strikes against that airbase.

manqiangrexue said:

Carriers are not for peer fights anymore; they are for peer contests that are limited (such as power projection contest where both countries are restrained not to start WWIII by sinking rival carriers) and for bullying inferior countries. If you are in a war with the US where it has escalated to striking US territory, you better do it with ballistic missiles fired either directly from China or from more survivable platforms like submarines or disposable platforms like fake container ships. We would really be threading on the edge of nuclear war if we are hitting each other like that and in that situation, the carriers on both sides would be in grave danger from getting one-shotted by missiles, particularly American carriers cus this is what China has been planning for decades.

Click to expand...

Remember that the US barely has any long-range hypersonic missiles.

Now, I would agree that carriers have become less useful than previously, but in the open ocean, where there are no land airbases, the carrier are still the only way to have persistent air power. That enables ISR or air superiority over any targets, and then you have options as to how to hit those targets.

AndrewS said:

A Chinese aircraft carrier between Japan and Alaska would have multiple functions:

1. Prevent cargo aircraft from reaching Japan
2. Prevent ships reaching Japan
3. Prevent airborne refuelling aircraft from enabling bombers to overfly Japan, and then launch missiles.




There is only a single, isolated airbase located in Alaska, so a Chinese aircraft carrier force could have enough aircraft to conduct strikes against that airbase.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this notion is unrealistic.

In context of a high intensity conflict, the idea of a PLAN carrier being able to reach and operate in the northern pacific to begin with is a huge demand (as it would necessitate the neutralization of basically all air and naval forces in the western pacific to begin with first of all, as well as the massive logistics tail it would necessitate) -- however the US would also easily detect and track such a force operating in the region and be considered a very high value target.

The US would not merely be using one airbase in Alaska to annihilate said PLAN CSG -- not only would they greatly reinforce Alaska with air power and IADS and ISR and missile forces, but they would be using land bases and naval forces from most of the continental US (long range bombers, fighters, tankers, SSNs and CSGs of their own) to carry out a joint strike mission against said PLAN force.

AndrewS said:

Remember that the US barely has any long-range hypersonic missiles.

Click to expand...

There are multiple ways to strike at a CSG.
Also, just because the US barely has any long range hypersonics right now doesn't mean that will continue to be the case. Within 5-10 years, that could greatly change.

AndrewS said:

Now, I would agree that carriers have become less useful than previously, but in the open ocean, where there are no land airbases, the carrier are still the only way to have persistent air power. That enables ISR or air superiority over any targets, and then you have options as to how to hit those targets.

Click to expand...

You are correct, in that carriers are still vital in deploying organic fixed wing military aviation in the open ocean.
And I actually agree that carriers can still be relevant in a high intensity conflict between two superpowers -- in certain circumstances.

However, the viability of such a force (and the size of such a force) greatly depends on the specific supporting friendly forces, the maritime geographic environment, the logistics tail (and vulnerability of said logistics tail) to support your CSG, and how the preceding warfighting actions have occurred to enable (or deprive) your CSG from operating in the way you want.


There are certainly some conflict scenarios where the PLA having a sizeable carrier force would be vital in contesting certain specific wartime objectives (especially ones at greater ranges like beyond 2IC or central pacific distances), but the ability to contest those objectives in the first place requires the PLA to be able to decisively and massively win a westpac conflict to begin with to provide that freedom of movement.