PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

Tsavo Lion said:
They certainly made a great leap! True, the PLAN can't "maintain full task forces in each of the worlds major oceans", but occasional forays can already be done!
Click to expand...


If you're impressed by that article then I suggest that you do a bit more research

in polite terms it's a load of tosh. I realise its for enthusiastic audiences, but reality has to hit eventually.

the nickname for chinese subs that were uninvited and tried to penetrate Talisman Saber and RIMPAC exercises used to be "kelvinators"
 
Last edited:
The open sources will be biased anyway, & I don't have access to classified info., so what's the point? Reading between the lines won't help too for the above reasons!
 
Tsavo Lion said:
The open sources will be biased anyway, & I don't have access to classified info., so what's the point? Reading between the lines won't help too for the above reasons!
Click to expand...

analysis is about a process - you can still do robust analysis without referencing classified material

and who in their right mind will be spouting any classified material in a public forum?

note the blue handled and tagged members, (and there are others who are not blue coloured tagged who are also ex service)

none of them are dumb enough to go and breach - and yet its self evident that they have more than a clue when they pass comment.

sometimes its about critical thinking and basic research. it's not that hard to do.

fan boy sites are usually obvious
 
Last edited:
Early this month a PLAN Song class SSK and its Chang Xingdao tender docked at the Royal Malaysian Navy base at Sepanggar in East Malaysia. Both had recently completed a deployment to the Indian Ocean. Although Sepanggar has been receiving its share of foreign visitors over the years [mostly USN but also RAN, RSN and JMSDF] this is the first time a PLAN sub has visited the base [for that matter it's the first time a PLAN sub has docked in Malaysia]. According to the same report which appeared in an Indian military blog; PLAN has carried out a total of 12 sub patrols in the Indian Ocean; the first in 2014.

Writing in his blog, the writer mentioned why the recent launch of a missile, which Pakistan claimed was fired from a PN sub, was actually fired by a PLAN Shang class SSN. The reason being [according to the writer] is that Pakistan did not issue a ''Notice To Mariners'' [which should have been issued 10 days before the launch] and that to fire such a missile ''the fire-control system servers required for computing and transmitting the firing solution for/to the encapsulated Babur-3 would have to be integrated with the SUBTICS and the 533mm torpedo launch-tubes''; requiring source codes which Thales [as the OEM of SUBTICs] would not have provided.
 
gf0012-aust said:
GlobatSec op-ed on number 2

2nd carrier almost complete

interesting to see that number 3 will be more like US carriers
Click to expand...

Apprantly they are after up to 6 carriers (not sure if that includes the Liaoning) wonder how they will cope logistically wise with different types of strike carriers and how that effects aircraft types and weapons load out, interesting times ahead no doubt for those who have to look to the future force planing.
 
t68 said:
Apprantly they are after up to 6 carriers (not sure if that includes the Liaoning) wonder how they will cope logistically wise with different types of strike carriers and how that effects aircraft types and weapons load out, interesting times ahead no doubt for those who have to look to the future force planing.
Click to expand...

6 for China who presumably will deploy them only in Pacific and maybe Indian Ocean, compared to 10 for US who need enough to spread them around/deploy to Pacific, Atlantic, Med, and Gulf.
 
gf0012-aust said:
GlobatSec op-ed on number 2

2nd carrier almost complete

interesting to see that number 3 will be more like US carriers
Click to expand...

Inevitable I would imagine.
The US has the most experience of anyone in building and operating carriers and they have done this in volume for decades.
I would bet my right nut that the Chinese have studied everything that they can get their hands on regarding US carrier construction and operation.
It will be no surprise to see exact replicas of US crew parties, US deck responsibilities - both flight and service, US operational doctrine etc.
The biggest part of the learning curve is still ahead of them - how to make it all work at tempo and how to keep working when one or more wheels fall off.
Operating carrier task groups will probably develop in concert with the ability to learn how to get the carrier to work seamlessly as well.
It will be a huge task as they started from scratch and there are bound to be some costly hiccups.
But the Chinese have shown how resourceful they are and I expect that they will become very good at it.
MB
 
t68 said:
Apprantly they are after up to 6 carriers (not sure if that includes the Liaoning) wonder how they will cope logistically wise with different types of strike carriers and how that effects aircraft types and weapons load out, interesting times ahead no doubt for those who have to look to the future force planing.
Click to expand...

I would assume that they would deploy class into specific oceans to make things easier

I would also assume that they will end up with 3 and possible 4 classes of carrier as they are prone to doing short runs of type and are prepared to make changes on the fly
 
rjtjrt said:
6 for China who presumably will deploy them only in Pacific and maybe Indian Ocean, compared to 10 for US who need enough to spread them around/deploy to Pacific, Atlantic, Med, and Gulf.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update

I think I know of a large island nation that sits somewhere in between these two large oceans.
Given carrier battle groups can be an important tool of foreign diplomacy.
I guess the question is; will this PLAN asset change China's expectations of itself and of those nations whose oceans it shares.
Interesting decades ahead.

Regards S

PS I wouldn't count on the USA maintaining all 10 carriers. Luckily the F35B off the Gator fleet will provide backup fleet numbers.
 
Stampede said:
Thanks for the update

PS I wouldn't count on the USA maintaining all 10 carriers. Luckily the F35B off the Gator fleet will provide backup fleet numbers.
Click to expand...

china is planning 2 carriers for each ocean (Ind and Pac) - I struggle to see how strong their Ind Ocean fleet will be as it will not have the advantage of the SCS or continental china of land based air support.

the US has already demonstrated that they can surge 7 carrier task forces into the PacRim - and in real terms, add in the ARG/ESG's and that means 15+ platforms with an ability to provide fixed wing air - and LO air at that acting as battle managers for conventional air

For all the hoo gar and hand wringing about china and the SCS "land based air craft carriers" the USN won't be poking that bear with carriers, if push comes to shove the island threat will get engaged via other options first

their Indian Ocean fleet will be a bigger irritation for the Indians - what will be interesting is whether the Indians over the next 5-10 years start beefing up the Andomans - and then their western flag to deal with the chinese sallying forth out of Gwadar

and then there is the other issue of whether the PLAN tries to establish friendly ports on the east african coast.

the PLAN will have to manage 4 Indian flag commands in the Ind ocean - and in addition all of the Indian AF heavies which are also scattered out through to the Andomans
 
The Chinese are decades away from deploying multiple CBGs. Yes it will happen but by the time they've sorted the logistics, the operational,skills and the development of a corps of competent frontline pilots and aviation specialists who train and rotate, mid century will be well upon us.

The handwringing needs to be tempered with the realisation the carrier ops take generations to gain proficiency. Let's assume that the new PLA N carriers deploy with 30 aircraft and say 50 pilots, six carriers need 300 pilots and twice that in the train and sustain production line. These don't appear in tens of years, these build over scores of years.

The Russians have been in this game since the early Moskvas and YAKs in the late 60s, early 70s and they still haven't cracked it not that I'm suggesting that the Chinese will follow that example but the fact remains it's hard and only a few western nations have achieved success and none anywhere near the combat effectiveness of the USN.

The PLA N will grow to be a highly effective and competent force But the USNs superiority in power projection through their CBGs will remain and be an effective counter to Chinese expansionism for a generation or more
 
ASSAIL said:
The Chinese are decades away from deploying multiple CBGs. Yes it will happen but by the time they've sorted the logistics, the operational,skills and the development of a corps of competent frontline pilots and aviation specialists who train and rotate, mid century will be well upon us.

The handwringing needs to be tempered with the realisation the carrier ops take generations to gain proficiency. Let's assume that the new PLA N carriers deploy with 30 aircraft and say 50 pilots, six carriers need 300 pilots and twice that in the train and sustain production line. These don't appear in tens of years, these build over scores of years.

The Russians have been in this game since the early Moskvas and YAKs in the late 60s, early 70s and they still haven't cracked it not that I'm suggesting that the Chinese will follow that example but the fact remains it's hard and only a few western nations have achieved success and none anywhere near the combat effectiveness of the USN.

The PLA N will grow to be a highly effective and competent force But the USNs superiority in power projection through their CBGs will remain and be an effective counter to Chinese expansionism for a generation or more
Click to expand...

Yes it is going to take time, but don't underestimate the Chinese.
I anticipate two or more CBGs well before 2050.
They have the money, they are rapidly developing expertise and they have the political will. Furthermore they have what they perceive to be the strategic imperative to do so. Mistakes, accidents, mishaps and loss of life in training and implementation will not stop them from going forward.
We all acknowledge that the learning curve is steep, but this has been no impediment to any other field of endeavour for them.
The Japanese mastered CBGs in less time - no reason why the Chinese won't do it too
MB
 
With F-35B IOC (and FOC just around the corner) each of the USNs LHDs and LHAs potentially have more combat power and greater survivability than Chinas proposed fleet. F-35B can even turn a half a dozen or so regional flat tops into more capable, strike and fleet defence platforms in a pretty short , while the availability of a raft of effective ABM add on's for existing systems as well as new systems coming on line and being developed, is eroding the DF21 threat. The biggest threat isn't actually what china is doing, its choosing not to take appropriate action to mitigate the advantage they seek.
 
Milne Bay said:
Yes it is going to take time, but don't underestimate the Chinese.
I anticipate two or more CBGs well before 2050.
They have the money, they are rapidly developing expertise and they have the political will. Furthermore they have what they perceive to be the strategic imperative to do so. Mistakes, accidents, mishaps and loss of life in training and implementation will not stop them from going forward.
We all acknowledge that the learning curve is steep, but this has been no impediment to any other field of endeavour for them.
The Japanese mastered CBGs in less time - no reason why the Chinese won't do it too
MB
Click to expand...

It's not about money and equipment because the PLA N will have plenty of both.
The transition requires people, people who have combat/operational experience and then able to train and sustain.

You mention the IJN, their great undoing was a lack of training refreshment, building the core of personnel able to rotate through the carriers and train the newbys and they paid dearly for it once all the experience had been neutered.

Again, time and people are what's needed to build the capability, the hardware is commitment and money, the easier of the two.
 
ASSAIL said:
It's not about money and equipment because the PLA N will have plenty of both.
The transition requires people, people who have combat/operational experience and then able to train and sustain.

You mention the IJN, their great undoing was a lack of training refreshment, building the core of personnel able to rotate through the carriers and train the newbys and they paid dearly for it once all the experience had been neutered.

Again, time and people are what's needed to build the capability, the hardware is commitment and money, the easier of the two.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.
The Chinese will have noted this as well I am sure.
They have just launched yet another ocean going training ship - Qi Jiguang which has been assigned to the Dalian Naval Academy.
MB
 
ASSAIL said:
Again, time and people are what's needed to build the capability, the hardware is commitment and money, the easier of the two.
Click to expand...

training, practice and disparate command experience, plus officer independence etc.... there's a huge muscle memory aspect to build

they aren't going to do that in a hurry no matter how much money they have - and they don't have platform luxury to accelerate that training either

as you imply without much subtlety ( :) ) they are yonks away from it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top