Chinese NAVY Explosive Expansion In 2004

[badguy2000]

The Following Are The New Warships Being Built Or Completed For Chinese Plan In 2004.judging From The Fact, You Can See Chinese Navy Is Really Expanding Explosively Now.it Is Estimated That Those Warships Will Come Into Service In Next 2 Years.

The New Ddg :11

(agis Frigate 4)170.171,179.180,
168.169.115
4 "moderizition" From Russia(2 Completed And Another 2 Being Made) .

New Escorts:4
525，526，527，527

New Subs:10
Yuan 1
Song 3
094 Nuclear Missle Sub:1
8 Kilos From Russia (2 Completed And Another 6 Being Made In Russia.)


THE EXISTENCE OF THESE ALL HAVE BEEN PROVED BY PHOTOES ,
AND JUDGING FOR THE NO. ARTIBUTED TO THE NOW SHIPS, ACCODING TO THE REGULATIONS OF PALN WARSHINP NAME ,ANOTHER SOME NEW INCLUDING DDG 114.113 SHOULD BE ON OPERATION BUT NEED PROOF TO IDENTIFIED

 

[tatra]

Beg pardon?

Destroyers:
179/180: not documented
115: not yet clear what it will be and for whom (actually: 114/115 added in 2005)
Sovremennys: 2 ex-Soviet vessels in service prior to 2004, 2 more building but not in service yet, possibly option on a further 2

Frigates
525/526 (Type 054)
527/528 (Type053H3), could be for Pakistan

What's sure was added in 2004 for surface vessels:
170,171 (Type 052C)
168,169 (Type 052B)
525,526 (Type 054)
And possibly
527,528 (Type 053H3)

That 6-8 ships rather than 15

 

[Raven_Wing278]

judging by the ships currently being constructed and comissioned..i think the PLAN is trying to make a esscort for its future carrier battle group

 

[armage]

What about new ASM being developed, AAM missiles, and new command and control systems?

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Actually I do not think China has any plan to construct a carrier anytime soon. The majority of their surface combatant is based on 60's Soivet design. Eventhough they've been upgraded, their capabilities are still considered obsolete. China's ASW ability are also limited to put it mildly. Given this situation, it's unlike China has plans to build her CVBG.

From what I've heard in other sources, the Yuan SSK are actually the production model of Song 039A, not an entirely new class.

 

[doggychow14]

Yes thus the reason PLANs construction of the 053H3's in for possible stop gap for the new ddg's and ffg's currently being fitted. Another example can be the constructions 054 when the type 730 CIWS, and vls systems weren't ready yet. However can 2 054, 2 052C, 2 052B, 2sovs, 115, and 093s be sufficeint for a CVBG?
ships PLAN recieved: 2 054, 2 052C, 2 52B, 2sovs, 2 053H3, unknown # 093 + 094,1 Yuan, 3 song, 2 kilos
other PLAN feets
:yj-83, yj-91, hq-9, su-30mkk2
Interesting year for PLA many surpirses this year
other nonPLAN, j-10B, , ws-10A engine test on j-11, new AWACS,
t-98G, ft-2000, manned space flight, jl-2, df-31, df-41, hn-3

An interesting yar for not only PLAN but for the whole PLA. Projects finished ahead of schedual, slowly replacing obsolete platforms. Though China still lagging far behind the US and other Western countries, China has made great strides these past few years.

 

[armage]

Speaking of the YJ-91...
Anybody got a picture of it or some info about it?

 

[doggychow14]

u can just look at a kh-31...I think ur getting it confused with the yj-85 and yj-12.

 

[armage]

OK, wait...
How many ASM does the PLAN have that's in development...?
And out of that much how many are actually credible?

 

[doggychow14]

It's impossible to know. But i think there's 1 ASCM under development either the yj-85 meaning it is a yj-8 deritative or a new type yj-12. It is expected to have a significantly longer range and speed than the yj-83. About sams. Any1 have any info on the hq-16 or ground based sd-10?

 

[ajay_ijn]

Actually I do not think China has any plan to construct a carrier anytime soon. The majority of their surface combatant is based on 60's Soivet design. Eventhough they've been upgraded, their capabilities are still considered obsolete. China's ASW ability are also limited to put it mildly. Given this situation, it's unlike China has plans to build her CVBG.

Type 052C Destroyer is equipped with HQ-9(S-300F) Air-defence system.Why would China install such long range air-defence system.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c.asp

Some reports indicated that the Type 052C might be used to provide fleet air defence cover for the future Chinese aircraft carrier battle group. With its advanced air defence system, the ship could also be used as the command ship for a surface combatant fleet. Nevertheless, the Type 052C gives the PLA Navy the capability which was not previously possessed by the force. The building of two Type 052C DDGs represents the latest progress in the Chinese navy’s effort to transform itself from a costal defence force to a ‘blue water’ oceanic navy.

 

[tatra]

judging by the ships currently being constructed and comissioned..i think the PLAN is trying to make a esscort for its future carrier battle group

The PLAN is facing block obsolescence (< spelling?) so the can't afford to build am carrier escort group. First and foremost they need to move the bulk of the fleet into the modern age. To do this they need to develop advanced indigenous capabilities. That's why we're seeing many designs being built in small numbers: trial and error, as precursor to or part of larger scale construction effort.

 

[ajay_ijn]

The PLAN is facing block obsolescence (< spelling?) so the can't afford to build am carrier escort group. First and foremost they need to move the bulk of the fleet into the modern age. To do this they need to develop advanced indigenous capabilities. That's why we're seeing many designs being built in small numbers: trial and error, as precursor to or part of larger scale construction effort.

Cmon tatra they don't want to build a Super Carrier like USN carriers.Chinese might build carriers with multirole capabilities.
Type 052C as i posted earlier will be an effective Carrier Escort.
India had a carrier 35 years ago and also used it in war,IN did not give massive escort to them,only 3 frigates were escorting it i suppose.

 

[armage]

If the PLAN's is going to get a carrier they shoud first build an effective ASubW fleet, AAW won't be a problem when the 52C and 51C become fully operational, and ASurW they already got a pretty power force just need to equip a couple of Su-30's or J-10

 

[Number1azn365]

Well they did agree to buy 250 Russian Engines for the J10's. The WS-10A are being test on the J11's (Su-27)

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the PLAN's is going to get a carrier they shoud first build an effective ASubW fleet, AAW won't be a problem when the 52C and 51C become fully operational, and ASurW they already got a pretty power force just need to equip a couple of Su-30's or J-10

China has insufficient 52C and 51C to be considered an effective powerful force (4 in total)

assuming equivalent capability with euro or US platforms, thats less than 1/2 the numbers required for capital ship protection at a war footing.

she's nowhere near ready for supporting carrier operations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Cmon tatra they don't want to build a Super Carrier like USN carriers.Chinese might build carriers with multirole capabilities.
Type 052C as i posted earlier will be an effective Carrier Escort.

nope, I disagree, the economies of support scale still exist with a smaller carrier as opposed to a larger. She has insufficient capable vessels suitable for CSF roles, let alone the degradation that would occur at the rest of the 3 fleet levels. larger carriers provide critical organic and netcentric advantages, they provide fleet attrition and logistics - the smaller the vessel, the less effective its combat footprint at a number of critical datum points. There's over 90 years of historical data that show why. Interestingly enough, the US established the economies of efficiency and scale for carriers in 1945 (The Midway Class as the minimum sized efficient centre platform) - it took some countries 50 years to come to the same conclusions. If you look at their history of CVE/CVL/CV/CVN's, they have built nearly 400 aircraft carriers since the Langley. There's a lot of historical, operational investment and knowledge on how to operate CBG/CSF/SAG/ESG's

India had a carrier 35 years ago and also used it in war,IN did not give massive escort to them,only 3 frigates were escorting it i suppose.

You cannot look at CSF/CBG/SAG fleet structures of 35 years ago to draw tactical models of today. The threats are far different, and the fleet vulnerability is greater.

Look at the CSF structure of the British or French - and they are at a peacetime footing. A warfooting is completely different, and China has no capability to provide surge numbers on a war footing.

Thats why her chances of successfully prosecuting an expeditionary event on Taiwan within the next 5 years are less positive. Not enough suitable platforms, not enough platform flexibility, and no training in fleet management at a capital vessel protection level.

China would need to double (at a minimum) but probably triple her skimmer numbers - and that means HVA's - not green water capability.

 

[ajay_ijn]

nope, I disagree, the economies of support scale still exist with a smaller carrier as opposed to a larger. She has insufficient capable vessels suitable for CSF roles, let alone the degradation that would occur at the rest of the 3 fleet levels. larger carriers provide critical organic and netcentric advantages, they provide fleet attrition and logistics - the smaller the vessel, the less effective its combat footprint at a number of critical datum points. There's over 90 years of historical data that show why. Interestingly enough, the US established the economies of efficiency and scale for carriers in 1945 (The Midway Class as the minimum sized efficient centre platform) - it took some countries 50 years to come to the same conclusions. If you look at their history of CVE/CVL/CV/CVN's, they have built nearly 400 aircraft carriers since the Langley. There's a lot of historical, operational investment and knowledge on how to operate CBG/CSF/SAG/ESG's

But USN is only capable of maintaining such large carriers.Others Countries Cannot maintain and Use Such Large Carriers.
And other Countries have different aims and Objectives of Building a Carrier.

The Midway Class as the minimum sized efficient centre platform

It may be for US not for every Country like China.

Look at the CSF structure of the British or French - and they are at a peacetime footing. A warfooting is completely different, and China has no capability to provide surge numbers on a war footing.

May be Slightly off Topic but gf how will Indian Navy Solve this Problem.

 

[doggychow14]

China has insufficient 52C and 51C to be considered an effective powerful force (4 in total)

Can't the Sovs and 054 or 054A(when/if inducted) be part of a possible escort group? Is it possible that PLAN i just testing out different platforms at the moment? Is it possible that once PLAN has felt she has sufficient platforms/logistics to operate a carrier group, PLAN will crank out more ships?

and China has no capability to provide surge numbers on a war footing

China has a massivly expanding industrial base. As long as she has the money, she will be able to pump out numbers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can't the Sovs and 054 or 054A(when/if inducted) be part of a possible escort group? Is it possible that PLAN i just testing out different platforms at the moment? Is it possible that once PLAN has felt she has sufficient platforms/logistics to operate a carrier group, PLAN will crank out more ships?


China has a massivly expanding industrial base. As long as she has the money, she will be able to pump out numbers.

Yes, they could, but the issue is you cannot take ships out now for escort duty as part of an ESG and keep the rest of the fleet intact and stable.

It's 2-3 years to build a vessel. then almost 9 months for a work up. China would have to be producing vessels at US War production rates and in a totally benign environment to succeed.

If China went to surge levels of production, there would be an immediate shift in regional posture as it would raise alarm bells.

US mothballed vessels still take 6 months to reactivate, but you can almost guarantee that they would be accelerated to counter a perceived build up threat. Japan would also change it's attitude (and she has been shifting her position and giving warning noises now for the last 6 months or so)


You can pump out platforms, but you still need competent manning and training - and you need individual vessel work ups, and then you need fleet training - all of those make it a 4-5 year availability cycle. if you speed it up, you will start to lose vessels and capability. These steps cannot be fast tracked without severe performance and operational degradation.