PLAN forgot something
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
While it certainly is true that they concentrated more on an offensive mining capability, they do have assets in place to prevent themselves from being on the receiving end of a mining campaign. Conveniently, there's a good article on this exact topic. 
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=979&z=7
Also, to mine Chinese harbours means getting close enough to do it. That means it must be done discreetly, and that means the only platforms capable of that in ROC are the subs. (surface vessels won't survive long enough) As can be seen, ROC's capability to mine PLAN harbours are much more limited as compared to PLAN's capability, when taking into consideration PLAN's large SSK force.
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=979&z=7
Also, to mine Chinese harbours means getting close enough to do it. That means it must be done discreetly, and that means the only platforms capable of that in ROC are the subs. (surface vessels won't survive long enough) As can be seen, ROC's capability to mine PLAN harbours are much more limited as compared to PLAN's capability, when taking into consideration PLAN's large SSK force.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=979&z=7
From this article it is quite clear that PLAN has no deep sea minesweepers and most of the dedicated boats have been switched to other uses. On top of that they do not have the ability to clear WWII minefields much less modern mines.
From this article it is quite clear that PLAN has no deep sea minesweepers and most of the dedicated boats have been switched to other uses. On top of that they do not have the ability to clear WWII minefields much less modern mines.
No deep sea minesweeper/hunter is needed for your scenario. The WW2 minefields could be there for the reason the article stated - the Chinese just might have found it in their interests not to remove them to complicate the entry of snoopers. The article was also not comprehensive in laying out the advances in Chinese mine warfare - UUVs seem to be explored as mine-recon vehicles, with viable UUV designs already exhibited. There seems to be a new class of minehunters, the with hull number 804 I think. While very likely to be not on par with other navies in terms of minesweeping/hunting capability, they should be able to handle a mine problem at their doorstep.Big-E said:
Here's a pic of the new minesweeper, I think.
http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/newsweeper060331210016__1_p111.jpg
still pendingrenjer said:
No. Gotland is providing (amongst with other things) the USN with:renjer said:
- training against an AIP equiped sub
- training against a sub crew familiar with littorals work
- training against a "mini" version of the Collins but with AIP - thus some ability to compare on performance envelopes with already shared data
- persistent warm water ASW training against a smaller sub
Gotland is being "leased" (with Swedish crew) by COMSUBPAC as a training aid, based out of Point Loma CA. There is absolutely no chance of Sweden selling a sub (or the technology thereof) to Taiwan.renjer said:
As far as the eight submarines promised a few years ago; the project is being held up by practicality and politics. The opposition party in Taiwan wants at least four to be built in Taiwan; however the Taiwanese navy (ironically) does not want this as they fear it is beyond their yards ability and the project will slip behind schedule. Meanwhile, the Taiwanese shipyard is proposing a design called "Indigineous Defense Submarine"; which is basically a slightly-souped up Sea Dragon class.
I heard that Lockheed Martin had bought enough of the rights to the Type 209 design to build them in the USA with-or-without German permission. They are waiting for the Taiwanese politicians to sort stuff out; also; they are trying to package funding from Egypt to build replacements for their Romeo subs. Egypt is in a similar pickle to Taiwan; they can only afford new subs with American aid, but, American aid requires American construction which is financially impossible without the Taiwanese order. The Egyptians want the yet-unbuilt Dutch "Moray" design, but will probably have to settle for whatever they can get.
As some rightly mention, PLAN is focussing on a offensive mining strategy. However, they also are investing heavily on Harbour Defence and Area monitoring systems, that would deter or maybe detect an adversary's attempt to deply bottom mines through submersible platforms.
Big-E said:Where are the minesweepers? All the ROC has to do is heavily mine PLAN harbors and half the fleet will be at the bottom.
You might think these MVMVs are mediocre, but I can see a Pluto/Gigas vehicle sitting on it. That means, they can deploy the ROV upto 600 meters or more, hence take care of a Captor sort of weapon from stand-off distance.In my opinion, the days of the sophisticated white elephant MCMV is over, and less expensive platforms with hi-tech ROVs should be the answer for proliferated bottom mines such as Manta, MRP etc.
Transient said:
The Chinese were very busy developing their own Harbour Defence detection systems a few years back. My feeling is that they have lacked success in the indigenous products as they have recently commissioned a Scottish company to provide them with complete detection systems using the same technology.shamsi said:
that capability already exists - and in the last 18 months the range of the ROV's have demonstrably increased. The ROV's have also changed dramatically as far as detection awareness is concerned.shamsi said:
In some areas yes, but at a fleet and benign area management level (ie mined but no overlapping defences) then I'd say that the MCMV's still have an important role.shamsi said:
except that nature and role of the ROV has changed as well. ROV roles are undergoing their own version of "moores law" as far as tactical evolution is concerned.shamsi said:
idreamof2morrow
New Member
i dont remmeber but during the korean war, majority of the losses or damage to US ships where from mines.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14
Forget the Korean war thats old news, we only need to go back to Gulf War I to see that. All ships damaged were from mines. USNs lack of planning on that really showed the need to get focus back on the MCM game. PLAN needs to beef up their mine-countermeasures or they are in for a world of hurt.idreamof2morrow said:
USNI Proceedings did an article a few years back where they hilighted that in the last 20 years, approx $150,000 worth of WW1 equiv contact mine technology had caused over $400m worth of shipping damage (civilian and military)Big-E said:
gf / Jtimes2, thank you for your responses. My questions are in this thread because I was curious to observe what the PLAN asset allocation reaction would be to the ROCN possessing some super-silent assets for covert mining operations.
gf, good heads-up on a possible Singaporean interest in the Gotland. She has always maintained a policy of over-matching Malaysia’s and Indonesia’s combined holdings in fighters. She will probably do the same with regards to submarines. Her five (?) Sjoormens plus the Vastergotland and Halsingland would roughly match Malaysia’s two Scorpene from France and Indonesia’s four Type 209s (?) from South Korea. I am not sure if the newer submarines are meant to replace any of the Sjoormens or if Indonesia intends to keep the Nanggala and the Cakra active. Thanks.
gf, good heads-up on a possible Singaporean interest in the Gotland. She has always maintained a policy of over-matching Malaysia’s and Indonesia’s combined holdings in fighters. She will probably do the same with regards to submarines. Her five (?) Sjoormens plus the Vastergotland and Halsingland would roughly match Malaysia’s two Scorpene from France and Indonesia’s four Type 209s (?) from South Korea. I am not sure if the newer submarines are meant to replace any of the Sjoormens or if Indonesia intends to keep the Nanggala and the Cakra active. Thanks.
I'd rate the Singaporean subs way above the 209's as I know that they've been substantially modified. I'd also rate them on par with the Scorpenes at an acoustic management level based on what I know of their modifications.renjer said:
They're definitely superior to Kilos - and thats in double digit decibel differences.
What? As far as I know the A12 Sjoormens have probably gotten the same TSM 2233 Mk 2 combat suite that the Scorpenes got. The A12 also probably has the Thales PVDF panel design by Thales retrofitted on them. But what other modifications do you know occurred on them? Please do share?
They've had acoustic managment mods - and I'm not in a position to share specific details.Transient said:What? As far as I know the A12 Sjoormens have probably gotten the same TSM 2233 Mk 2 combat suite that the Scorpenes got. The A12 also probably has the Thales PVDF panel design by Thales retrofitted on them. But what other modifications do you know occurred on them? Please do share?
I know of it because I've had some associated involvement.