PLAN would lose up to 40% of it's entire fleet to sink just 1 US aircraft carrier

[Eeshaan]

Defence News - PLA would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier

Quite an interesting observaton there. But in a conflict, I believe the Chinese media and people would consider this a victory. the US media and public would look at losing one of the carriers and the sailors along with it as a horrendus tragedy and would apply pressure on the US Navy to pull it's fleet out of the east Asia region.

It really is a staggering example of how powerful just one US Supercarrier and it's escorting fleet is, though.

Don't want to turn this into an X vs Y country thread, but this point had to be put across...

 

[RobWilliams]

Stupid fantasy fleet report, look at the last paragraph commenting on US' "biggest weakness" of deploying the entire US surface fleet in the Pacific. It's the sort of thing kids would dream up like some kind of game of top trumps with no basis in reality; two entire navies meet up together and have a big fight. Not to mention there's absolutely zero mention of submarines on either side, basic figures like F-35 combat radius are wrong, couple of other things.

Basically, this isn't a great article.

 

[Eeshaan]

Stupid fantasy fleet report, look at the last paragraph commenting on US' "biggest weakness" of deploying the entire US surface fleet in the Pacific. It's the sort of thing kids would dream up like some kind of game of top trumps with no basis in reality; two entire navies meet up together and have a big fight. Not to mention there's absolutely zero mention of submarines on either side, basic figures like F-35 combat radius are wrong, couple of other things.

Basically, this isn't a great article.

Thanks for the reality-check there. I had really not expected the odds in such a conflict to be stacked up so much against China.

But then again, the strange thing is that this analysis comes from a RUSSIA-based publication.

 

[kev 99]

Stupid fantasy fleet report, look at the last paragraph commenting on US' "biggest weakness" of deploying the entire US surface fleet in the Pacific. It's the sort of thing kids would dream up like some kind of game of top trumps with no basis in reality; two entire navies meet up together and have a big fight. Not to mention there's absolutely zero mention of submarines on either side, basic figures like F-35 combat radius are wrong, couple of other things.

Basically, this isn't a great article.

+1 it's absolutely terrible, reads like it was written by a 12 year old.

 

[RobWilliams]

Thanks for the reality-check there. I had really not expected the odds in such a conflict to be stacked up so much against China.

But then again, the strange thing is that this analysis comes from a RUSSIA-based publication.

Not particularly surprising though, the USN is the most effective naval fighting force on the planet & the PLAN are only now beginning to create a more powerful navy, this can't be done overnight.

Meh, I put it down stupid people are stupid. Or rather, ignorant people are ignorant.

 

[StobieWan]

Aye - the bit about the report originating from a Moscow based publication would give pause for thought. There's also the comments about "if the carrier group entered Chinese coastal waters.." - I can *so* see that happening - "Guys, we've trashed their blue water fleet, let's go see if we can give them a *fair* fight.." ?

Nah...

Bit confused about them crediting the carrier killer as being in service when in fact it's still "TBA" as far as I understand - the supporting apparatus isn't in place and there are all sorts of issues in terms of putting the kill chain together.

There's no reference to the sort of activity that the B2 bombers would be involved in, or what sort of chaos bringing a pair of SSGN's into the mix would bring. This is the classic "bath-tub" fight that the juveniles like to trash talk over. Also, horror of horrors, what if the US brought *2* carriers? Or just beefed up AWD escorts? Usually there's a pair of Burkes along - what if they decided "hmm..biggest peer threat on the planet, let's try *harder*? Or, horror and more horror - if the US were acting as part of an international coalition - wouldn't take much, if France and the UK contributed a couple of surface units each to a normally constituted battlegroup, you'd be looking at a very different case.

I suspect the naval battle would prove to be a foot note compared to the wider havoc wrought on the Chinese mainland during a conflict.

I suspect the article is an indirect prop for Russian tech exports to China in some part.

 

[t68]

Aye - the bit about the report originating from a Moscow based publication would give pause for thought. There's also the comments about "if the carrier group entered Chinese coastal waters.." - I can *so* see that happening - "Guys, we've trashed their blue water fleet, let's go see if we can give them a *fair* fight.." ?

Nah...

Bit confused about them crediting the carrier killer as being in service when in fact it's still "TBA" as far as I understand - the supporting apparatus isn't in place and there are all sorts of issues in terms of putting the kill chain together.

There's no reference to the sort of activity that the B2 bombers would be involved in, or what sort of chaos bringing a pair of SSGN's into the mix would bring. This is the classic "bath-tub" fight that the juveniles like to trash talk over. Also, horror of horrors, what if the US brought *2* carriers? Or just beefed up AWD escorts? Usually there's a pair of Burkes along - what if they decided "hmm..biggest peer threat on the planet, let's try *harder*? Or, horror and more horror - if the US were acting as part of an international coalition - wouldn't take much, if France and the UK contributed a couple of surface units each to a normally constituted battlegroup, you'd be looking at a very different case.

I suspect the naval battle would prove to be a foot note compared to the wider havoc wrought on the Chinese mainland during a conflict.

I suspect the article is an indirect prop for Russian tech exports to China in some part.

It’s interesting when you put it down as a coalition event, besides North Korea using it to its advantage against the South who else would possible form an alliance with china, Iran perhaps more skirmishes on many fronts to weight down the US capability. If there was a mutual pact of aggression all coming at the same time the US would be hard pressed to deal with them all.

Would you call the Korean Peninsula and any air-sea battle in SCS one theater obviously the Persian Gulf be another, where would Russia sit in all this.

Has China formed an alliance with anyone similar to Axis powers which grew from the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936,there is none that I am aware of.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the problem with all this kind of analysis is that its predicated on both sides fighting under known constructs.

the one thing the PLAN won't do is meet the USN on the USN's terms where they would run the risk of getting smacked into next sunday.

its a basic tenet of warfighting, ie conduct the fight on your own terms if you want to have a chance of dictating the outcome.

they're not going to last a bluewater midway type engagement - and they know it, so don't expect them to meet an engagement where they are outside of landbased air support or where they haven't had a red hot go at disrupting US C4/C5 etc....

They're not a threat now - but the issue is where both are sitting in 2020-2040

 

[My2Cents]

The key words are "the PLA would lose 40% of their fleet to sink a US carrier".

Percentages can be deceiving. The PLA blue water fleet isn't that big, so 40% could represent a favorable exchange ratio in their eyes. Particularly since they are probably going to have to sink much of the escort group to get to the carrier in the first place.

 

[StobieWan]

This is sort of like the "what if...Germany had a grand naval showdown with Great Britain in 1941" - you can talk about it all you like but one of the sides in the equation will see little hope of prevailing at a favourable exchange rate and will elect to give battle in some other manner or place, at a timing they prefer.

Unless the US decided to launch an attack on the Chinese mainland, in which case they'd bring *everything*, this isn't going to happen.

 

[Rimasta]

I'll try to avoid a one liner, but no plan survives first contact with the enemy. So it can go either way, the PLAN could somehow get a kill or a scratch on a fleet carrier, or they could expend massive forces and come up short. Too many variables, to reason for conflict, periphery concerns, etc, etc...hopefully we will never have to find out, nuclear armed nations should go to great lengths in avoiding war with each other.

 

[King Wally]

I must admit I would find it very fascinating to see the end result of two modern navy's clashing head to head. Best example I can think of was the Falklands, and the UK really felt the results of what a half dozen Exocet missiles could do (If I remember correct Argentina literally only had about 6 and still managed to hit 2 destroyers and a supply ship twice). Given recent advances in both missiles and counter defence system's I'm not quite sure what the modern result would be but I am certain that the US Navy would be as best prepared and equipped as anyone.

 

[kitkatnz1]

Gotta love statistics. If this was even remotely the case - what would you do if you had the capability of growing a rather large mushroom somewhere (or anywhere) in the Pacific???

 

[kev 99]

I must admit I would find it very fascinating to see the end result of two modern navy's clashing head to head. Best example I can think of was the Falklands, and the UK really felt the results of what a half dozen Exocet missiles could do (If I remember correct Argentina literally only had about 6 and still managed to hit 2 destroyers and a supply ship twice). Given recent advances in both missiles and counter defence system's I'm not quite sure what the modern result would be but I am certain that the US Navy would be as best prepared and equipped as anyone.

You remember almost correct they had 5 air launched, and a number that were installed on surface ships. The air launched accounted for Sheffield (1 hit) and Atlantic Conveyor (2 hits) and Glamorgan was hit by a single Exocet from a surface battery removed from an Argentine destroyer.

 

[cdxbow]

You remember almost correct they had 5 air launched, and a number that were installed on surface ships. The air launched accounted for Sheffield (1 hit) and Atlantic Conveyor (2 hits) and Glamorgan was hit by a single Exocet from a surface battery removed from an Argentine destroyer.

They didn't have much and made quite an impression.. A few more missiles and launchers and the Argentinians could have made a meal of the RN. We haven't seen a high level 21C naval conflict (and hopefully won't) but I don't believe you can extrapolate from tests where ships are able to shoot down a missile or two at a time compared to what would happen in an actual conflict.

The PLA have certainly invested in the right sort of tech to threaten a US carrier group within range of the Chinese mainland. Wouldn't one well placed DF21 spoil a carriers day?

Interesting to me is how the PLA has shown off all their new goodies almost straight away, most countries tend to keep such things secret, unless they are like Iran, which seems to like to announce hitech weapons (of dubious authenticity )for domestic purposes. The PLA strategy would seem to be one of genuine capability, perhaps building up to a point where the USN is unable, for example, support Taiwan or other allies near China. This would fit in with Sun Tzu, strategy "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." From the Art of War

 

[CB90]

They didn't have much and made quite an impression.. A few more missiles and launchers and the Argentinians could have made a meal of the RN. We haven't seen a high level 21C naval conflict (and hopefully won't) but I don't believe you can extrapolate from tests where ships are able to shoot down a missile or two at a time compared to what would happen in an actual conflict.

Actually yes you can, if you structure the live fire test event properly. There's more to test data than a simple pass/fail. Gather enough parameters and you can do analysis to figure out the rest.

 

[Whitehead]

I think the complete opposite would happen if a carrier were sunk. It would be a massive rallying cry for the entire nation. The American people would not shy away after something like that were to happen. But with economic ties as they are, I highly doubt the USN or PLAN fighting each other anytime soon. That and nuclear weapons keeps any large scale conflict from erupting. Just my two cents.

 

[cdxbow]

Actually yes you can, if you structure the live fire test event properly. There's more to test data than a simple pass/fail. Gather enough parameters and you can do analysis to figure out the rest.

Taiwan 2025- USN carrier group patrolling south of Taiwan during a period escalating tension.

The PLA second artillery fire a first volley of 32 defers (DF21) at your carrier group. At the same time a dozen Type 22 missle boats that turn and streak into range for suicidal attack, launch 48 C803 cruise missles, wizzing a few metres above the ocean at your group. A pair of kilo class subs that has been sitting quietly waiting for the carrier group to get into range now let loose with Sizzlers, it's suicidal for the subs but, heck, it's for the Motherland. Then there are four squadron's of PLAAF J20 on the way......

That's only some of the PLA knowns. There are a few more you could throw into the stew, then there are Rumsfeld 'unknown, unknowns'. eg the PLA planted virus shuts down your Battle Management System, the PLAN agent explodes a bomb......

So I don't gain much confidence from missile tests. The numbers, complexity, uncertainty, "unknown uknowns" and usual human f*** ups just aren't there.

 

[Bonza]

Can you explain your definition of "missile test"? Because I don't think it's the same thing as what CB90 is alluding to. Or at least you don't appear to believe in the ability of testing to simulate events beyond a certain level of complexity.

 

[CB90]

Taiwan 2025- USN carrier group patrolling south of Taiwan during a period escalating tension.

The PLA second artillery fire a first volley of 32 defers (DF21) at your carrier group. At the same time a dozen Type 22 missle boats that turn and streak into range for suicidal attack, launch 48 C803 cruise missles, wizzing a few metres above the ocean at your group. A pair of kilo class subs that has been sitting quietly waiting for the carrier group to get into range now let loose with Sizzlers, it's suicidal for the subs but, heck, it's for the Motherland. Then there are four squadron's of PLAAF J20 on the way......

Your point? I don't think you realize just how difficult it would be to put that kind of coordinated attack together. Not to mention no actual accounting for the time/distances involved, actual operating patterns, etc. You're basically assuming all the pieces of the puzzle magically fall into place.

That's only some of the PLA knowns. There are a few more you could throw into the stew, then there are Rumsfeld 'unknown, unknowns'. eg the PLA planted virus shuts down your Battle Management System, the PLAN agent explodes a bomb......

That's pure "What if" territory and not very useful. Especially since it can easily go the other way.

So I don't gain much confidence from missile tests. The numbers, complexity, uncertainty, "unknown uknowns" and usual human f*** ups just aren't there.

If I had no clue what actually goes into "missile tests" I guess I probably wouldn't gain much confidence either. And technical tests are not the same as tactical exercises.