The context is what would happen beyond the 2IC, beyond the range of the Chinese Air Force or Rocket Force.
Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
The context is what would happen beyond the 2IC, beyond the range of the Chinese Air Force or Rocket Force.
All those missiles I listed hit far beyond the 2IC. The 2IC is at most 3000km away from the mainland. DF-26D, DF-27, and CJ-1000 are all at least 4,000km class and or likely >5,000km ranged anti ship missiles. Dare I say almost all of the 3IC is within range of these missiles if they are carefully positioned on the mainland.
I don't believe It is entirely realistic at all for the PLAN to be fighting American carrier groups outside of the 3IC. There are not many scenarios where the PLAN would be engaging a USN fleet outside of the PLARF range.
Here is a very conservative map of a couple of launch locations for PLARF anti ship missiles, who's missiles max out at 5,000km.
And here is a possible area coverage map for 7,000km class anti ship missiles.
(5,000km - 8,000km)
Are we realistically expecting the PLAN to be fighting the USN out of these area coverages?
And aint that something.. a DF26D or DF27 could be launched from Xinjiang and sink a carrier group in the Mediterranean.
Last edited:
The issue is finding opposing naval ships in the ocean, and then having the munitions to reach them.
---
Now, the US is ditching the E-7, which was supposed to be the successor to the E-3.
Instead, they're going for a (unproven) real-time space based surveillance system with thousands of satellites.
If this is feasible, then the US can track all surface ships globally, all the time.
But it also means that the Chinese military will build an equivalent system, which means the US Navy is screwed.
The US has to rely on ships to reach the Western Pacific.
In comparison, China can use land-based missiles and aircraft for the Western Pacific.
It's so much easier to sink any ship (such as an aircraft carrier) than to destroy a hardened airbase inside a mountain.
And an aircraft carrier is essentially a single floating airbase.
It's also likely China will have many more long-range Chinese antiship missiles than the US, given how far China is ahead in terms of costs, numbers and missile types.
---
But let's suppose a real-time space based surveillance system with thousands of satellites doesn't actually work.
Then you need to use ISR aircraft to find opposing ships. But today, beyond the 2IC, Chinese ISR aircraft would likely be shot down.
So whilst Chinese antiship missiles have very long ranges, they don't know where to target.
Your first premise is already outdated and completely wrong way to fight in the modern era. Why should a Chinese fleet with only 1 carrier send its 2 squadrons to fight all the way out of the safety of its ship-based air defense zone, where it has the least advantage and no chance of winning.
Deep sea Naval battle can happen in 2 ways, either offense or defense. If you find the enemy ships first and decide to attack the fleet to sink it, that is offense. If you are being attacked that is defense.
First of all, if you are the defender, your biggest advantage is the ship based SAM systems, creating a dense bubble that enemy planes cannot enter without getting shot down. A chinese fleet with 20 destroyers and 20 frigates will create a very well dispersed and dense layered air and missile defense network that no enemy can penetrate.
Chinese carrier planes should not get out of that bubble and become vulnerable. They should take advantage of that bubble.
So, the best way for China to defend will be to use its carrier based planes, both AWACS and fighters as observers and scouts. They should focus on spotting the attacker early and guide its ship based SAMs towards the enemy planes and incoming missiles. They have the advantage of flying high and looking down and spotting low flying planes and missiles. Once those missiles and planes are detected and comes within range of the SAMs, they are toast. The carrier based planes will also provide backup with their AA missiles, but again well within the SAM bubble and thus safe from enemy planes.
Now when it comes to offense, again, the focus of carrier aviation should be spotting the enemy ships if satellite based detection do not work. Once the enemy fleet is found, Chinese ship based anti-ship missiles should have enough range to fire at them. Which again means, Chinese planes do not have to be the attacker on the enemy fleet.
Carrier based planes can carry more anti-ship missiles since missiles are usually smaller and subsonic, but those missiles are also weak and easier to shoot down. I would say its much better to attack enemy fleet with ship based hypersonic and high supersonic anti-ship missiles.
Here is my concluding point responding to your comment. I think Carriers are getting extremely vulnerable and could become totally defenseless if hypersonic missile tech keeps getting better. With satellite based tracking getting good, they cannot hide at all, and thus all the enemy has to do is fire long range ASBM at them.
The only saving grace carriers have is the fact the carrier-based planes provide over the horizon radar capability and long range scouting. But even that could be too costly over the long term.
Distributed lethality is the way to go and carriers are not it. China's focus on more destroyers and frigates is the better option and they don't need that many carriers.
If China gets for example 10 carriers, then they should get 160 destroyers and 160 frigates. This is a much better ratio compared to US with 10 carriers but just 80 destroyers and no frigates.
Because ship-based SAMs like the HHQ-9 have a maximum range of 300km.
Opposing aircraft can detect ships at 400km+ and have antiship missiles launched at even greater distances.
If Chinese fighters stay within ship-based SAM coverage, sure, the fighters can be relatively safe. But the ships below will face multiple waves of incoming antiship missiles, and eventually there won't be any ships left. Then those fighters fall into in the sea because there isn't anywhere to land.
Chinese fighters have no choice but to leave the envelope of ship-based SAMs.
yes , chinese fighters have to take on air superiority role to target hostile airborne assets
In the simplest possible terms: ships are slow, planes are fast, and the ocean is big. Relying on ships for fires generation means that you will be continually outmaneuvered by faster and more flexible aircraft, which can use said maneuverability to exploit favorable engagement opportunities—gradually unpeeling the defensive onion by picking off pickets and stragglers. You are never going to have all your ships in perfect positions at all times. And even when you do, the aircraft can simply retreat. Always holding the initiative is an enormous advantage.
One might recall the lessons of history w.r.t. infantry and cavalry. Mobility matters. China certainly has no shortage of examples in that regard.
One might recall the lessons of history w.r.t. infantry and cavalry. Mobility matters. China certainly has no shortage of examples in that regard.
To add to that. Have people already forgotten China demonstrated a FOBS-HGV 4+ years ago (with some other mystery wizard shit in the vehicle)? I find it quite unlikely they haven't already developed FOBS or at least ICBM-tipped MaRV/HGV conventional ASBMs precisely for such above IRBM range strikes, given the obvious desirability of it and extensibility of the tech. Predicating on being able to locate the ships, the requirements on transit times, seekers etc are not vastly different from the existing in service systems.
I believe there have been rumours on >DF-27 range ASBMs already as well which would align with that.
Not to disagree with you necessarily on everything, but in this specific scenario can't the Chinese fighters just shoot at the incoming strike group within SAM cover?
Say the Chinese fighters stay within the 200km - 300km SAM range and just lob A2A (PL15/PL17) long sticks at incoming strike group, which might be at the 450KM range.
The strike group would be carrying payload magnifying their RCS. The detection and shooting towards the strike group will happen between the 150KM - 250KM distance. If the strike group does not turn it might get multiple shots at the Chinese surface group, at the cost of losing most of their planes. If it does turn it fails the mission, potentially losing their payload and some planes in the process. This way, we are achieving both air squadron protection by ship based SAMs, and deterrance of enemy strike (or simply making it too costly).
At this point doesn't this just come back to the notion of air cover, but with much much higher modern detection range and firing range, the latter of which is working much in favor of the Chinese side due to the long sticks? And if we are talking about purely J35 squadrons there is also the advantage of LO in this specific mission comparison.
I am just saying that in this specific (and oversimplified) scenario, I don't think the Chinese squadrons need to leave its SAM coverage.
052D is indeed listed in the export catalog as a 6,000-ton class frigate.
For country that doesn't need to sail far and only needs to focus on near-sea defense, it doesn't matter if the crew's living conditions on the Type 052D destroyer are a little worse and its range is a little shorter.
Last edited: