PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

KiwiRob said:
The 4 original Russian engines were still installed, just never used, they were entombed in greace to preserve them. The Chinese recommissioned then in 2011 and made them work properly, she doesn’t smoke like her sister.
Click to expand...

Thanks, the article I read said no engines.
 
PLAN MINE WARFARE

Sorry for changing track gentlemen, but may I humbly suggest that the posts so far are forgetting the lessons of Operation Starvation (the US naval mining of Japan), the stopping of the invasion armada of 250 allied warships by the Communist mines at Wonsan, the Tripoli, the Princeton, the Samuel B. Roberts, and the immense strategic import and massive production of naval mines that has always occupied a central pillar of PLAN naval strategy.

PLAN strategy talks both of a single submarine laying a complex 50 mine minefield, and using civillian vessels to lay mines before the outbreak of hostilities.

Invasion plans for Taiwan speak of over 500 ships and aircraft equipped to lay mines and the laying of 14,000 mines to block all attempts at allied naval intervention. Following a surge of 7,000 mines laid on the first two days, each subsequent day some 2,000 further mines can be laid.

More US ships have been both sunk and damaged by mines since the end of WW2 than by any other factor.

50 mines laid in Auckland, Wellington, Sydney, Melbourne etc would close down our SLOC and is a constant source of cocern.

New Zealand and Australian naval defence would be well advised to prioritise on neutralising the Communist Chinese mine and submarine threats and ensuring the defence of civillian shipping...
 
Last edited:
First mode-made STOBAR Chinese CV is now in trials mode.

Something to think about.

Note to any PLAN/Beijing PR folks - if you want to fool viewers into thinking the new carrier is already flying embarked air then it might be a good idea to hide LIAONING's pennant number. :eek:

 
Last edited:
Yes, I know the first sentence in the above post should say "home-made" and not "mode-made."

Thankyou not, autocorrect.

That said, I am now open to suggestions as to what "mode-made" could actually mean.
 
@DaveS124 The new carrier is larger than LIAONING by a ways, so looking at the video do you think it's larger? IIRC there are also some changes to the radars etc. The pennant number could be a false flag.
 
In a decade or so, when PLAN carrier battle groups cruise the South Pacific, further convincing corrupt politicians to remoldel their nations according to CCP demands, what will the response of the RAN and RNZN be one wonders.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...brows-across-the-pacific-20180411-p4z8yu.html

Those who have spent time in, for example Vanuatu, where the Shanghai Construction Group, built the largest wharf in the South Pacific, 360m long, where some of our relatives served in World War Two preventing another expansionist Asian power will know what I mean...
 
PLAN Submarine Crew Command Structure

Gidday Gidday all,

Am writing a novel that involves a chapter where a PLAN Type 039B Yuan class submarine engages the Royal New Zealand Navy Anzac class frigate Te Kaha.

Could anyone please point me in the right direction regarding the command structure on board Chinese submarines thank you?

I have Red Star Over the Pacific, written by Toshi Yoshihara of the US Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and James Holmes of the Naval War College. This has some general information but am hunting for information regarding the relationship on board Chinese submarines between PLAN Officers and CCP Party Commissionaires thank you.

I am aware of the PLAN Lobby's role, led by Admiral Liu, upon influencing the CCP in the 1988 Spratly Island Battle and the 1990 debates over the formation of carrier battle groups and centralising naval control. I wish to create that dynamic of naval officers onboard a Chinese submarine in World War Three in the South Pacific not only battling the RNZN but also battling the onboard CCP representatives.

Any advice or help on direction of research regarding such dynamics on board a Chinese submarine would be most gratefully received thank you.

Yours Faithfully
Catalina

41MIxujM69L._SX340_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
There's also another way to look at this besides the matter of cost of development, in my opinion. Right now they are using J-15 which basically Su-33 based. That's a large carrier based aircraft, that even Russia now seems going to change their Su-33 with Mig-29 derivative as their carrier based fighter.

J-20 will be more or less in same ball park dimensionally (even bit slightly larger), and both are bigger than FC-31. Perhaps shown tendency of PLAN on using large relatively longer range fighter from their carrier.
With STOBAR on Liaoning and Type 001A, the J-15 is limited on take off weights thus can not exploits it's true range.

With CATOBAR on their next gen CV, J-20 can exploit more of it's range, especially if China also developed carrier based Tankers.
It's like USN used F-14 as their sole carrier based fighter.
 
Catalina said:
PLAN Submarine Crew Command Structure

Gidday Gidday all,

Am writing a novel that involves a chapter where a PLAN Type 039B Yuan class submarine engages the Royal New Zealand Navy Anzac class frigate Te Kaha.

Could anyone please point me in the right direction regarding the command structure on board Chinese submarines thank you?

I have Red Star Over the Pacific, written by Toshi Yoshihara of the US Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and James Holmes of the Naval War College. This has some general information but am hunting for information regarding the relationship on board Chinese submarines between PLAN Officers and CCP Party Commissionaires thank you.

I am aware of the PLAN Lobby's role, led by Admiral Liu, upon influencing the CCP in the 1988 Spratly Island Battle and the 1990 debates over the formation of carrier battle groups and centralising naval control. I wish to create that dynamic of naval officers onboard a Chinese submarine in World War Three in the South Pacific not only battling the RNZN but also battling the onboard CCP representatives.

Any advice or help on direction of research regarding such dynamics on board a Chinese submarine would be most gratefully received thank you.

Yours Faithfully
Catalina
Click to expand...
@Catalina Don't think that you'll find much, if anything, that is open source. The sub service very aptly named as the silent service. The PLAN sub service would be even more so, unless it is something that the CCP publicises as propaganda. The only suggestion I could make would be to look at the USSR submarine services during the Cold War, because the PLA, PLAN & PLAAF structures etc., were / are based on the Soviet military / political structures. From what I understand, they still have political officers in their units and sub units. I would suggest reading this: Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War by P.W., Singer and August Cole. Although a work of fiction it is accurate in it's knowledge of strategy and weapons systems.
 
Ananda said:
There's also another way to look at this besides the matter of cost of development, in my opinion. Right now they are using J-15 which basically Su-33 based. That's a large carrier based aircraft, that even Russia now seems going to change their Su-33 with Mig-29 derivative as their carrier based fighter.

J-20 will be more or less in same ball park dimensionally (even bit slightly larger), and both are bigger than FC-31. Perhaps shown tendency of PLAN on using large relatively longer range fighter from their carrier.
With STOBAR on Liaoning and Type 001A, the J-15 is limited on take off weights thus can not exploits it's true range.

With CATOBAR on their next gen CV, J-20 can exploit more of it's range, especially if China also developed carrier based Tankers.
It's like USN used F-14 as their sole carrier based fighter.
Click to expand...

Unless Chinese designers factored in carrier requirements for the J-20 initially I think the costs for designing structural enhancements, more robust landing gear, modification for tail hooks, larger wing control surfaces, and perhaps folding wings will be very significant. A naval Raptor for the USN would have been nice but the price, not so much.

It will be interesting to see which comes first, a CATOBAR carrier or a naval J-20. There is also the Chinese engine issue.
 
John Fedup said:
Unless Chinese designers factored in carrier requirements for the J-20 initially I think the costs for designing structural enhancements, more robust landing gear, modification for tail hooks, larger wing control surfaces, and perhaps folding wings will be very significant. A naval Raptor for the USN would have been nice but the price, not so much.
Click to expand...

The next Chinese CATOBAR carrier despite it's larger then Liaoning and it's 'half' sister Type 001A, is still bit smaller then Nimitz and Ford class (well that according the speculative specs being circulated around on Chinese Forums and Media).

Thus, personally I thought FC-31 will be more fitted due to it's dimensions. However if the article is right and Navalised J-20 being choose, then I understand why they can't go on developed both as naval version. We'all know developing land based fighter for Navalised version basically same as build another Airplane.

Still, as I mentioned before choosing Navalised J-20 with more or less similar dimensions to current J-15 shown Chinese Navy tendency on using large heavy fighter perhaps more on the longer range potential.

The way I see it, by choosing that shown Chinese prepared for those carriers to be more capable on open blue water operation, outside land based air cover.
 
Looks like an interesting addition for the PLAN today.

China joins the LHD club with their first of class Type 075 Amphibious ships.

China Launches 1st Type 075 LHD for PLAN - Naval News

With a second ship under construction and speculation that more will follow, these LHD's in conjunction with their impressive Type 071 Amphibious transport dock ships will give the PLAN a very significant amphibious power projection capability.

Add to the list a couple of dozen of the Type 72 series 4000 t landing ships supported, by a growing Marine Corps and the not unrealistic question becomes.
"What's all this about?"

One to watch


Regards S
 
Ananda said:
There's also another way to look at this besides the matter of cost of development, in my opinion. Right now they are using J-15 which basically Su-33 based. That's a large carrier based aircraft, that even Russia now seems going to change their Su-33 with Mig-29 derivative as their carrier based fighter.

J-20 will be more or less in same ball park dimensionally (even bit slightly larger), and both are bigger than FC-31. Perhaps shown tendency of PLAN on using large relatively longer range fighter from their carrier.
With STOBAR on Liaoning and Type 001A, the J-15 is limited on take off weights thus can not exploits it's true range.

With CATOBAR on their next gen CV, J-20 can exploit more of it's range, especially if China also developed carrier based Tankers.
It's like USN used F-14 as their sole carrier based fighter.
Click to expand...

I posted this link in the AirForce/military aviation thread #273 which suggests the FC-31 is the more likely carrier jet choice but it does acknowledge reports about the J-20 being navalized.

Beyond China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter
 
I would be more concerned about the production capabilities of their J-20, FC-31, and DF series missile factories. The carriers need state of the art aviation assets to be effective. Not sure what the timeline is for navalized 5 Gen fighters but probably longer than a couple of CATOBAR carriers with properly trained crews. (Hopefully)
 
John Fedup said:
I would be more concerned about the production capabilities of their J-20, FC-31, and DF series missile factories. The carriers need state of the art aviation assets to be effective. Not sure what the timeline is for navalized 5 Gen fighters but probably longer than a couple of CATOBAR carriers with properly trained crews. (Hopefully)
Click to expand...
Crew Training and development of tactics on how to a operate a Catabar Carrier will be a steep learning curve for the Chinese and they are mot going to get any assistance from the current users unlike the South Koreans who if the decide to go down the same path will be able to call on extensive help from the USN, probably including having personal on USN Carriers for extended periods.
 
Certainly the 75 years of carrier operations the USN has under its belt is a huge advantage that can be offered to allied navies. That being said, China has surprised on a number of fronts. They have the money to train and experiment on operations on a 24/7 basis once their ships are in the water. It will be a trying process with lots of mistakes but they will keep at it until they get it right. It will be many years but not as many has some would hope for.
 
True, there are many ingredients to actually having the ability of deploying fast air at sea, particularly far form the relative sanctuary of your coastline.
But what we have here is the INTENT to build this capability.
The glamorous stuff is the big ship with the flat deck.
Two in the water and one on the way. A new massive naval dock that implies a commitment, not just to build a third carrier but any number for a fleet of six carriers in the decade ahead.
Add to the mix the necessary range of destroyers and frigates, both in quantity and quality to provide the protective screen for the carrier and the equally important supply ships to ensure the fleet can go the distance.
The Chinese can build aircraft, and while there are challenges, they will over time be over come.
As to experience in carrier operations.
Well this is a not to be underestimated.
However
I do remember travelling from Shenzen to Guangzhou in the early 90's and our host was saying how this farm land would one day be a massive industrial zone of activity.
I was still guarded by my fathers business experience to China in the late 70's, and while Hong Kong had an electric dynamic to it, one didn't really pick up on the potential at the time. His thoughts were they are just not ready at this stage.
Well haven't things changed.
If China wants to build a Carrier capability and all that it entails, them I'm sure they will do it and much quicker than what we all expect.


Regards S

Ps - its not just about taking on a US Carrier group
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top