PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos

luosifen

Senior Member
Registered Member
42plan1.jpg
A sailor assigned to the 42nd naval escort taskforce of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) checks the bearing of the other shipduring a replenishment-at-sea (RAS) in the waters of the Gulf of Aden on October 10, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Qing)

42plan2.jpg
Two warships attached to the 42nd naval escort taskforce of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) conduct astern replenishment-at-sea in the waters of the Gulf of Aden on October 10, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Qing)

42plan3.jpg
A sailor assigned to the 42nd naval escort taskforce of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) guides a warship to sail to the designated position for refueling during a replenishment-at-sea (RAS) in the waters of the Gulf of Aden on October 10, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Qing)

42plan4.jpg
Two warships attached to the 42nd naval escort taskforce of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) conduct underway replenishment-at-sea in the waters of the Gulf of Aden on October 10, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Qing)

42plan5.jpg
Sailors assigned to the 42nd naval escort taskforce of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) conduct refueling operation during a replenishment-at-sea operation in the waters of the Gulf of Aden on October 10, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Wang Qing)
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member

Accordingly, as of November 2022 there are 2 CVs (Liaoning and Shandong) and 3 LHDs (Hainan, Guangxi and Anhui) in active service with the PLAN, with 1 CV (Fujian) currently fitting out and undegoing mooring tests in Jiangnan.

China has 32 provinces (31 on mainland + Taiwan), of which 6 has already been named upon Chinese warships.

That means there are 26 (25 + 1) empty spaces left to for more Chinese CVs and LHD+LHAs to fill.

In comparison, the United States currently operates 11 CV(N)s and 10 LHD+LHAs (11 before the Bonhomme Richard got barbequed).

So, what do you guys think? How many CVs and LHD/LHAs should China operate in total?
 

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member

Accordingly, as of November 2022 there are 2 CVs (Liaoning and Shandong) and 3 LHDs (Hainan, Guangxi and Anhui) in active service with the PLAN, with 1 CV (Fujian) currently fitting out and undegoing mooring tests in Jiangnan.

China has 32 provinces (31 on mainland + Taiwan), of which 6 has already been named upon Chinese warships.

That means there are 26 (25 + 1) empty spaces left to for more Chinese CVs and LHD+LHAs to fill.

In comparison, the United States currently operates 11 CV(N)s and 10 LHD+LHAs (11 before the Bonhomme Richard got barbequed).

So, what do you guys think? How many CVs and LHD/LHAs should China operate in total?
Hoping that they will field the amount that they can maintain and not build to much with half their capacity non working... a good navy is a navy with functionning ships. Hoping that they will not have these kind of problems:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Drone carrying carrier will be a thing too so the types of ships used will evolve soon so it's hard to put numbers. If they want power projection on the globe scale, they will need at least 8 CV and 8 LHD+LHA. For territorial defence oriented fleet, we can see less CV and maybe drone carrier and LHD+LHA taking more space.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Japanese have 4 LHDs and the South Koreans have 2. I doubt China will have less than 6 LHDs.

A lot of analysts seem to claim that China is trying to out build the US Navy or something. But to me, when I look at the numbers, it seems more like just an attempt to keep parity with US aligned forces in the Pacific like the Japanese, South Korean, and US fleets forward deployed there.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
The Japanese have 4 LHDs and the South Koreans have 2. I doubt China will have less than 6 LHDs.
I highly doubt that the 4 Japanese flat-decks can be called LHDs. 2 of them are proper aircraft carriers (Izumo), and the other 2 are helicopter carriers (Hyuga) with potential to undergo similar conversion as the Izumos.

However, the PLA should just consider all 6 of them as proper light aircraft carriers.

A lot of analysts seem to claim that China is trying to out build the US Navy or something. But to me, when I look at the numbers, it seems more like just an attempt to keep parity with US aligned forces in the Pacific like the Japanese, South Korean, and US fleets forward deployed there.
Indeed. Although, compared to the United States, China does have a home-front advantage where the PLAN can reliably depend upon the PLAAF, PLARF and some elements of the PLAGF to share portions of the burden.

In that regard, for the closest timeline, the PLAN should build and expand her fleets that would achieve parity with the expected deployable naval forces of the US and her allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia, UK, France, Canada) in the Western Pacific in order to guarantee both numerical and qualitative edge for the PLAN. No need to outbuild the USN just for the sake of outbuilding the USN.

Hoping that they will field the amount that they can maintain and not build to much with half their capacity non working... a good navy is a navy with functionning ships. Hoping that they will not have these kind of problems:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Drone carrying carrier will be a thing too so the types of ships used will evolve soon so it's hard to put numbers. If they want power projection on the globe scale, they will need at least 8 CV and 8 LHD+LHA. For territorial defence oriented fleet, we can see less CV and maybe drone carrier and LHD+LHA taking more space.
That's true.

However, what really does matter is how the PLAN views their 075s and 076s.

This is because -
The 075s are functioning as:
Type: LHD
Role: Launching, commanding and supporting amphibious assault operations; ASW

Meanwhile, the 076s would function as:
Type: Mixture of LHD and small CATOBAR CV
Role: Launching, commanding and supporting amphibious assault operations; ASW; and most importantly, UCAV carriers

Therefore, it is still an open question on how the PLAN would eventually distribute and assign roles to their non-CV flat-deck warships. In my opinion, the 075s are more geared towards amphibious warfare, and the 076s are more geared towards providing UCAV squadrons to the main fleet CVs (i.e. 001, 002, 003 etc) on the high seas.

Speaking of which, according to pop3 (Haven't heard from him for quite a long time, anyone knows how he's doing right now?), the 2nd phase of amphibious assault ship construction in China has already begun, with orders for 5 ships of the 2nd batch 075s being placed. This would bring the number of 075s to 8 ships in total.

Simultaneously, pop3 also claimed that the 076s are expected to begin construction work within the 2nd phase of amphibious assault ship construction too. However, it is unclear whether the 076s would begin construction simultaneously as the first 075 of the 2nd batch, or sometime afterwards. The possibility of features meant for the 076s are included in the 2nd batch 075s should not be discounted as well.
 
Last edited:

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
A lot of analysts seem to claim that China is trying to out build the US Navy or something.
The Chinese are not "trying to" they are literally out building the US Navy, by a factor of 2 to 1. The US Navy may be bigger, measured in total tonnage, but is in decline. US ships are being retired at a faster rate than they are being built. If current trends continue then China will have the largest navy in the world by 2032.

China is currently building an average of 160,000 tons of warships per year. I think this number will easily go up to 200,000 tons within the next 4 years. I have no "sources" to support this claim, it's just my gut feeling.
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Japanese have 4 LHDs and the South Koreans have 2. I doubt China will have less than 6 LHDs.

A lot of analysts seem to claim that China is trying to out build the US Navy or something. But to me, when I look at the numbers, it seems more like just an attempt to keep parity with US aligned forces in the Pacific like the Japanese, South Korean, and US fleets forward deployed there.
The only "boasting point" the Japanese and Koreans have with their light carriers is that they are capable of carrying F-35, which they think will be a game changer advantage against China. This is a ridiculous thought. All China has to do is to just introduce a STOBAR version of J-35, which doesn't even need to be an entirely different model from the CATOBAR J-35. With this, the PLAN will have 2 large STOBAR carrier, each carrying some 16 to 20 J-35, and half a dozen J-15D. This combination would be more than enough to deal with The Japanese and Korean ships.

There has been prior example of CATOBAR aircraft converted to do STOBAR operations. The F-18E/F is an example, it was marketed to India as a STOBAR aircraft to operate on Indian carriers. This means that the CATOBAR J-35 only needs some small modification, or even just software upgrade to become STOBAR capable.

Imagine Liaoning with 16 J-35, 4 J-15/S (provide air refueling), 4 J-15D. That's a 24 Jet combination that the Liaoning have pretty much no problem handling, since we already saw picture evidence of 24 J-15 operating on the deck of Liaoning. The same goes for Shandong, which could even carrier 2 more J-35.

PLAN could even have:
- Liaoning with 18 J-35, 6 J-15/S (for refueling and secondary SEAD mission with ECM pods). This is a 24 jet fleet the Liaoning already in directly proven to be capable to operate on deck.
- Shandong with 16 j-35, 6 J-15D, 4 J-15S (for refueling and support roles). This is a 26 Jet fleet which the Shandong should have no problem operating.

Both of these will have no problem taking on Japanese or Korean light carriers, which only operate F-35B.

Of course, both Liaoning and Shandong can go full J-35 fleet. Which gives at least 24 J-35 for Liaoning and 26 J-35 for Shandong. This is already very conservative, with presumption that J-35 takes the same floor space as J-15. And remember these numbers are ON DECK numbers. The full number of J-35 the STOBAR carriers can carrier (on deck and in hanger) would be higher than these by at least 40%.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
The only "boasting point" the Japanese and Koreans have with their light carriers is that they are capable of carrying F-35, which they think will be a game changer advantage against China. This is a ridiculous thought. All China has to do is to just introduce a STOBAR version of J-35, which doesn't even need to be an entirely different model from the CATOBAR J-35. With this, the PLAN will have 2 large STOBAR carrier, each carrying some 16 to 20 J-35, and half a dozen J-15D. This combination would be more than enough to deal with The Japanese and Korean ships.

There has been prior example of CATOBAR aircraft converted to do STOBAR operations. The F-18E/F is an example, it was marketed to India as a STOBAR aircraft to operate on Indian carriers. This means that the CATOBAR J-35 only needs some small modification, or even just software upgrade to become STOBAR capable.

Imagine Liaoning with 16 J-35, 4 J-15/S (provide air refueling), 4 J-15D. That's a 24 Jet combination that the Liaoning have pretty much no problem handling, since we already saw picture evidence of 24 J-15 operating on the deck of Liaoning. The same goes for Shandong, which could even carrier 2 more J-35.

PLAN could even have:
- Liaoning with 18 J-35, 6 J-15/S (for refueling and secondary SEAD mission with ECM pods). This is a 24 jet fleet the Liaoning already in directly proven to be capable to operate on deck.
- Shandong with 16 j-35, 6 J-15D, 4 J-15S (for refueling and support roles). This is a 26 Jet fleet which the Shandong should have no problem operating.

Both of these will have no problem taking on Japanese or Korean light carriers, which only operate F-35B.

Of course, both Liaoning and Shandong can go full J-35 fleet. Which gives at least 24 J-35 for Liaoning and 26 J-35 for Shandong. This is already very conservative, with presumption that J-35 takes the same floor space as J-15. And remember these numbers are ON DECK numbers. The full number of J-35 the STOBAR carriers can carrier (on deck and in hanger) would be higher than these by at least 40%.
No no, that's not necessary. PLAN don't need their own STOBAR fighter to deal with the mini flattops, what's wrong with PLARF's anti-ship ballistic missile? If they can take out USN CVN then they're also perfectly suitable for taking these wannabe carriers.
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
No no, that's not necessary. PLAN don't need their own STOBAR fighter to deal with the mini flattops, what's wrong with PLARF's anti-ship ballistic missile? If they can take out USN CVN then they're also perfectly suitable for taking these wannabe carriers.
If weapons are only for winning physical wars, than a lot of these carriers around the world won't even need to be commissioned.

Weapons are are also for psychological warfare, propaganda and cultural competition. Korean and Japan are low-cost/low-tier "enemies" to China. They to China are like Ukraine and the Baltic states to Russia: they weren't meant to and will never be decisively stronger than China, but their existence forces China to waste some military expenditure and resources on weapon systems and capabilities that are not strategically effective/meaningful on the US. This is because real wars are NOT likely to happen between them and China, but a lot of peace time arm wrestling and conflict-less skirmishes are bound to happen. Basically, they are strategic diversion that weakens China's ability to concentrate resources on countering the USA. If China's strategic goal is peaceful rise, it must develop an effective peacetime capability to use show-of-force to stare her opponents down.

Therefore, if a tiny little investment can win you significant gripping point (or even superficial advantage) against them, it would be very much beneficial and worth the cost. Without the STOBAR F-35, the Japanese and Koreans will be a lot more encouraged to sail their ships in a "show-of-force" manner to provoke China. This will NOT be meant to start a real skirmish or hot conflict with China (because these ships don't really have the fighting capability against China's full military might), but politically and propaganda-wise, this will give the Western propaganda machine a chance to propel a false rhetoric that the Chinese military is weak against even second tier opponents like Japan and Korea. This would rouse those dissident-minded groups and people like the HK rioter to create problem in China. And because it is only a show of force, China can NOT really counter effectively without actually going to war and prove her strength by destroying those ships. Therefore this become a propaganda war in which China will be at the losing side, because both the patriotic Chinese audience at home to curse the government for being weak and ineffective, and it will encourage and boost the confidence of China's opponents (separatists, anti-China foreign audience).

In case of Taiwan, if both Japan and Korea has F-35 on their heli-carriers and China don't have J-35 on CV16/17, this will also give the propaganda machine in Taiwan a chance to propel false rhetoric that their supposed "allies" (Japan and Korea) can somehow be capable of giving them meaningful help with MINIMAL COST (meaning: without even having to get the US military directive involved). This might not change the real strategic balance, but it would significantly increase The cost China will need to "win against the enemy without a fight" (不战而屈人之兵).

Real strategy and geopolitics are all about costs and benefit.
 
Last edited:
Top