Future PLAN orbat discussion

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...

The SSN would be at most, 15knots faster than the SSBN.

Based on the ADCAP torpedo specifications, the SSN would need to get to within 10nm? for the ADCAP to hit an SSBN directly running away.

But the SSBN could launch torpedoes backwards at the noisy SSN. And the SSN is running directly into the path of the torpedo.

---

I'm not against a SSBN being of a sailless design. But shouldn't they test out the sailless SSN design first, before deciding to use it on an SSBN?

vincent said:

Never dance to your enemy’s tunes. If the US and its vassals blockade the Indian Ocean, assemble your fleet and start an island hopping campaign towards the CONUS. 攻其必救。

Click to expand...

The moment China built a EMALS nuclear carrier the same or bigger than Ford is the moment it started to dance to the enemy's tune? China has larger economy and ship building than US so carrier parity is a matter of political decision if they ever want to fight US on blue waters in Indian ocean to protect oil imports. Otherwise, turtle shell in first island chain with limited war doesn't need any carriers or carrier parity.

Also, island hopping towards CONUS doesn't solve that oil imports from Middle East is cut off? Will US give up because it lost first and second island chain? There is no oil resources there to replace ME.

Phead128 said:

The moment China built a EMALS nuclear carrier the same or bigger than Ford is the moment it started to dance to the enemy's tune? China has larger economy and ship building than US so carrier parity is a matter of political decision if they ever want to fight US on blue waters in Indian ocean to protect oil imports. Otherwise, turtle shell in first island chain with limited war doesn't need any carriers or carrier parity.

Click to expand...

I was responding to your comment on sending PLAN fleets to the Indian Ocean to fight.

Phead128 said:

Also, island hopping towards CONUS doesn't solve that oil imports from Middle East is cut off? Will US give up because it lost first and second island chain? There is no oil resources there to replace ME.

Click to expand...

Crude imports will become less and less important to China, as amply demonstrated today

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...

As I said, there is no need for carrier parity, as far as defense is concerned. There is no scenario where the US surges the numbers you are alluding too. That is not how things work in real life.

Moreover, not only there is no realistic way to cut off China, but if needed, you don't use carriers to sink carriers. You use missiles.

manqiangrexue said:

A Chinese aircraft carrier? China already has 3. Do you think we can prevent shipping from America to Japan or win a fight against Elmendorf by sailing there?

Click to expand...

China would need a lot more aircraft carriers than today.

manqiangrexue said:

Remember China has a wonderful advantage against the US in that if they wish to use their carriers against us, they are betting >$20B in assets and 4-5,000 personel per ship against $10M missiles. I'm very very comfortable with those odds and wagers. I don't want to flip that bet at all. It takes many more resources to build a massive carrier fleet than to develop missiles to sink it.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

China launches a DF-26 which should cost less than $10Mn
To intercept, the US Navy has to launch two SM-6, which costs $10 Mn
So let's say China launches 100 hypersonic missiles to overwhelm the defenders.
(China has about 250 DF-26 launchers with about 500 missiles currerently)
The missiles cost $1 Bn and the aircraft carrier costs $13 Bn. That is a 13:1 ratio.

The numbers very much favour Chinese missiles against US aircraft carriers.

---

But this calculation does not apply to US hypersonic missiles against Chinese aircraft carriers.

The LRHW is the closest equivalent to the DF-26. But it costs $40 Mn and has a puny 13kg warhead for fixed targets.
But let's assume there is an anti-ship version (which would actually be more expensive)

If the Chinese Navy has to launch two SM-6 (less than $10 Mn) to shoot down a LRHW ($40 Mn), that is a bargain for China.
Also, can the US field enough missiles and launchers to overwhelm the Chinese carrier defenders?
The US is only planning to ramp to 24 LRHW per year.

And even if the LRHW hits a carrier, 13kg warheads are not going to sink a carrier.
Plus a hundred LRHW would cost $4 Bn, but my best guess is that the Type-004 would be around $6-7 Bn. That is an acceptable cost ratio, but not a great one.

manqiangrexue said:

Carriers are known as glass jaws for good reason. As I said, they can be very very useful against weaker opponents or in limited power competitions with peers, but they are dangerously vulnerable against another superpower.

Click to expand...

We'll have to see how it plays out in the future.
But in the middle of the ocean, there is no other source of persistent fighter jet presence.

AndrewS said:

China launches a DF-26 which should cost less than $10Mn
To intercept, the US Navy has to launch two SM-6, which costs $10 Mn

Click to expand...

The problem is that the US functionally does not have a credible defense against hyper-sonic gliders currently, at least not on a ship. The SM6 operates in the dense atmosphere while SM-3 operates close to space, but the area in between which is most frequently used for hyper-sonic gliders is essentially unprotected. THAAD interceptors can theoretically be effective at this altitude, but they are 1.land based and 2. have pitiful range. The US is still scrambling for a missile project to block this giant hole in air defence, while China already have hq19 and very easily hhq19 to fulfill this role.

Air aircraft carrier cost more than $10 billion, an aircraft carrier battle group + all their missiles and aircrafts could probably be 2 or 3 X more than $10 billion.

How many hypersonic missiles could be procured for $20 billion or $30 billion?

Dante80 said:

As I said, there is no need for carrier parity, as far as defense is concerned. There is no scenario where the US surges the numbers you are alluding too. That is not how things work in real life.

Moreover, not only there is no realistic way to cut off China, but if needed, you don't use carriers to sink carriers. You use missiles.

Click to expand...

As the world's largest trading nation, China has a requirement to defend its global seaborne trade.

And as long as the US has a significant naval advantage, the US can conduct a distant blockade against China, beyond the reach of Chinese forces based on land. Such a blockade would be leaky, but it will exist.

So I don't see any way to defend China's overseas trade unless the Chinese Navy has a significant advantage in naval air power, which means a lot more carriers.

AndrewS said:

China would need a lot more aircraft carriers than today.

Click to expand...

No, you said to just put a carrier between Japan and Alaska and it could suppress Elmendorf and stop shipping from the US to Japan. We have 3; realistically, you'd want something like 10 to disperse 3 to the region. If we put all 3 there, what do you think would happen? Could they get the job done? I don't think so; I think they'd all be overwhelmed and killed.

If you want to stop shipping from the US to Japan, the best way would be to destroy all Japanese airports by IRBM.

AndrewS said:

I agree with this.

China launches a DF-26 which should cost less than $10Mn
To intercept, the US Navy has to launch two SM-6, which costs $10 Mn
So let's say China launches 100 hypersonic missiles to overwhelm the defenders.
(China has about 250 DF-26 launchers with about 500 missiles currerently)
The missiles cost $1 Bn and the aircraft carrier costs $13 Bn. That is a 13:1 ratio.

The numbers very much favour Chinese missiles against US aircraft carriers.

---

But this calculation does not apply to US hypersonic missiles against Chinese aircraft carriers.

The LRHW is the closest equivalent to the DF-26. But it costs $40 Mn and has a puny 13kg warhead for fixed targets.
But let's assume there is an anti-ship version (which would actually be more expensive)

If the Chinese Navy has to launch two SM-6 (less than $10 Mn) to shoot down a LRHW ($40 Mn), that is a bargain for China.
Also, can the US field enough missiles and launchers to overwhelm the Chinese carrier defenders?
The US is only planning to ramp to 24 LRHW per year.

And even if the LRHW hits a carrier, 13kg warheads are not going to sink a carrier.
Plus a hundred LRHW would cost $4 Bn, but my best guess is that the Type-004 would be around $6-7 Bn. That is an acceptable cost ratio, but not a great one.

Click to expand...

The US is not nearly as advanced as China when it comes to ASBMs because it doesn't invest in the technology. China invests in it because the biggest question that needs to be answered to defend against the US is how to defeat its 10+ carriers. The US never had that question against any rival nation but if China posed that question to them, they'll be making some quick headway there. And you're calculating costs only; I don't want to gamble 5,000 sailors against an enemy missile either.

AndrewS said:

We'll have to see how it plays out in the future.
But in the middle of the ocean, there is no other source of persistent fighter jet presence.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I said that in power projection, a dominant Chinese carrier fleet is needed, but it will not be necessary so long as China is fixated on defeating the US in Asia.