Future PLAN orbat discussion

Blitzo said:

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.





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.




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.

Click to expand...

mack8 said:

Meanwhile, given the launch of the 09X which from what can be understood from chineze netizens is a revolutionary boat, what this signifies for the long awaited 096 SSBN, will it be still a relatively conventional 095 level tech sub, or they will push ahead to incorporate 09X level tech? A fast, stealthy SSBN would have survivability taken to new levels.

Click to expand...

Dante80 said:

1. It is not needed for its defense.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

An SSBN is supposed to spend most of its time at the slowest speed possible.

My guess is that making a sailless Type-096 SSBN would be too risky and unnecessary

Click to expand...

Phead128 said:

The recent US blockade of Straits of Hormuz, where China imports 35-45% of it's oil, I am not sure what PLAN could have done without parity of nuclear carriers. Hypothetically, US can assemble 11 carrier group + 9 helicopter carriers to straddle SLOC in Indian ocean (or a choke point) and cut off China's vital supplies. What can China do without nuclear carrier parity in a blue water confrontation in Indian ocean? What's the point of building carrier fleet if not parity count to defeat USN in Indian ocean?

Click to expand...

mack8 said:

How about a situation when the SSBN needs to run away from a pursuing enemy SSN? Of course this is needed only if the unthinkable happens, but if things got to that point the SSBN needs every ounce of advantage it can get to survive long enough to launch it's SLBMs.

Click to expand...

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...

AndrewS said:

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

Click to expand...

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...