About the aircraft carrier plan of China

[Musashi_kenshin]

Taiwan should ignore them.

Or pepper them with HF-IIIs.

 

[tphuang]

Or pepper them with HF-IIIs.

how would that be a problem, lol. You make it sound like China has not build escorts around it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Or pepper them with HF-IIIs.

Certainly a possibility. Just as a new class of DE subs for Taiwan would have a much greater chance of putting a fish into it and get away with it, than the PRC would have of doing the same to a USN carrier.

It's not that it is impossible for Taiwan to deal with a PLA-N carrier or two. My point is just that when plenty of landbased air is available then what is the point of the carrier? Sea control outside of RoCAF range? They won't need a carrier for that.

The only thing a carrier brings to the picnic is an additional axis of attack, which is very expensive, adds little extra firepower, and represent a vulnerable target.

And since the U.S. et al. is going to intervene, they wouldn't even deploy them. One could just as well ask how a single Kang Ding would fare against the entire PLA-N - it is artificial.

IIRC, PLA-N would use them for projection and SLOC protection.

 

[Wooki]

Certainly a possibility. Just as a new class of DE subs for Taiwan would have a much greater chance of putting a fish into it and get away with it, than the PRC would have of doing the same to a USN carrier.

It's not that it is impossible for Taiwan to deal with a PLA-N carrier or two. My point is just that when plenty of landbased air is available then what is the point of the carrier? Sea control outside of RoCAF range? They won't need a carrier for that.

The only thing a carrier brings to the picnic is an additional axis of attack, which is very expensive, adds little extra firepower, and represent a vulnerable target.

And since the U.S. et al. is going to intervene, they wouldn't even deploy them. One could just as well ask how a single Kang Ding would fare against the entire PLA-N - it is artificial.

IIRC, PLA-N would use them for projection and SLOC protection.

One would have to agree, unless the Chinese know something we don't. Sometimes that happens, say for example: An ability to defuse a submarines offensive weapon systems so as to make them redundant.

GD: "What?!!!"
W: " Yes, an ability to defeat systems that the west are wedded to, to perform outside the bounds of western 'conventional wisdom'..."

A good historical example re: carriers is the Japanese Zero from WW2 and in fact the entire IJN fleet air arm's capability. It was simply an unknown at the beginning of WW2.

The "west" today is not so ignorant, so you need to look in other areas where a country like China might achieve a similar parity that the Japanese did in 1941.

These could be (but not limited too) materials, cyber, comms and computer sciences (as examples).

So the question of capability of a Chinese carrier element is more complicated then the discussion represented here.


cheers


w

 

[Grand Danois]

What?!!!

But where does the carrier have it's role in this, as i don't see it as an enabler of the examples you mention. such things could be carried out by onshore based assets or smaller ships!!!

One would have to agree, unless the Chinese know something we don't. Sometimes that happens, say for example: An ability to defuse a submarines offensive weapon systems so as to make them redundant.

GD: "What?!!!"
W: " Yes, an ability to defeat systems that the west are wedded to, to perform outside the bounds of western 'conventional wisdom'..."

A good historical example re: carriers is the Japanese Zero from WW2 and in fact the entire IJN fleet air arm's capability. It was simply an unknown at the beginning of WW2.

The "west" today is not so ignorant, so you need to look in other areas where a country like China might achieve a similar parity that the Japanese did in 1941.

These could be (but not limited too) materials, cyber, comms and computer sciences (as examples).

So the question of capability of a Chinese carrier element is more complicated then the discussion represented here.


cheers


w

 

[Galrahn]

I hope China builds carriers, I can't think of a better way for China to sink huge portions of national treasure than a couple first generation huge carriers.

 

[Wooki]

What?!!!

But where does the carrier have it's role in this, as i don't see it as an enabler of the examples you mention. such things could be carried out by onshore based assets or smaller ships!!!

That is my point. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean that there is not an enabler (specifically for carriers in this case) there. The examples mentioned would be areas to look at to identify the symptoms of such an enabler.

To begin with, these are general areas that could be applied to literally any platform (as you suggest) but then having consolidated your theory(s), you can then delve deeper into more specific applications, or fields that interest you.

kind of like how you determine someone has a cold. If they are coughing and have a fever then these are symtoms of a virus, but not necessarily the specific strain of influenza you are watching out for.

So taking that example one step further. I can apply this "applied surveillance" (as in applied math is different then theoretical math) to domestic internal issues such as emergency management and specifically syndromic surveillance of, say, a school.

If there is a truancy rate of 2 kids per week at a school skipping out on class and then one week there are 4 kids skipping out on class, is this a sign of a biological attack against that community? answer: by itself no, but if 7 schools in the surrounding area exhibit the same phenomena then it is fair to make a conclusion that something is going on in that school district that the CDC should be made aware of and investigate further.

So, for carriers and China, you look for symptoms that would enable a Carrier in the first place, but most importantly you look for signs that the carrier would indeed be effective. Training is a good one to start with. Then having summed up all the data you have you can make an appraisal at that moment in time.

Your appraisal at the moment GD (this second ) is "no", but that may well change 10 minutes from now (or however often you check) when you have more fresh "useful information packets" coming in.


cheers


w

 

[crobato]

I hope China builds carriers, I can't think of a better way for China to sink huge portions of national treasure than a couple first generation huge carriers.

Kind of like the way the Ming did with Zheng He's Treasure ships?

That's what the new carrier is all about, the new Zheng He Treasure ship.

 

[tphuang]

Certainly a possibility. Just as a new class of DE subs for Taiwan would have a much greater chance of putting a fish into it and get away with it, than the PRC would have of doing the same to a USN carrier.

what diesel subs? Nobody is building it for them, if you haven't noticed.

It's not that it is impossible for Taiwan to deal with a PLA-N carrier or two. My point is just that when plenty of landbased air is available then what is the point of the carrier? Sea control outside of RoCAF range? They won't need a carrier for that.

it's not for taiwan, but the point about a few HF-3 threatening it is way out there.

The only thing a carrier brings to the picnic is an additional axis of attack, which is very expensive, adds little extra firepower, and represent a vulnerable target.

allows engagement much farther off the land.

And since the U.S. et al. is going to intervene, they wouldn't even deploy them. One could just as well ask how a single Kang Ding would fare against the entire PLA-N - it is artificial.

IIRC, PLA-N would use them for projection and SLOC protection.

I hard think if China has 3 carriers in the case of an invasion, it would not deploy them.

 

[Grand Danois]

what diesel subs? Nobody is building it for them, if you haven't noticed.

However, I would predict they will have been built by the time PLA-N gets their carrier.

it's not for taiwan, but the point about a few HF-3 threatening it is way out there.

As far as I can see, area air defence against low level missiles is currently very lacking in the PLA-N. Point defence seems excellent.

allows engagement much farther off the land.

I hard think if China has 3 carriers in the case of an invasion, it would not deploy them.

What I am arguing, is that if I was the mainland war planner, with a given set of resources, then I would not use them on building carriers for the specific mission of attacking Taiwan. If they are around anyway, sure, but that is not the case. IMV a carrier would be inefficient use of resources for the specific mission of taking Taiwan. That they may be around for SLOC missions etc, is not part of that equation.

If I was a Taipei war planner, I wouldn't waste resources on sinking them otoh. A few shorebased long range AShM batteries and hoping the reconaissance systems provide some targeting data would suffice. Above that would be wasting resources imv. The carriers bring to little firepower with them, compared to what the mainland can bring to bear.

@ wooki. No, I am not dissing Chinese science or ability to be innovative, nor their ability to build and work up a carrier.

What I am commenting on, is how a carrier as a platform, a concept, with fighters, UAV, UCAV, AEW fits into an assault force on Taiwan. Comparing to what the same resources used on other systems can do, and with the specific geography in mind, PLA-N carriers would be last thing Taipei should worry about.

Considering what is around of concepts and ideas (and fielded systems) for killing USN carriers, then a PLAN-N carrier would also be exposed to same threats and would have less countermeasures - i.e. more vulnerable.

 

[Wooki]

However, I would predict they will have been built by the time PLA-N gets their carrier.



As far as I can see, area air defence against low level missiles is currently very lacking in the PLA-N. Point defence seems excellent.



What I am arguing, is that if I was the mainland war planner, with a given set of resources, then I would not use them on building carriers for the specific mission of attacking Taiwan. If they are around anyway, sure, but that is not the case. IMV a carrier would be inefficient use of resources for the specific mission of taking Taiwan. That they may be around for SLOC missions etc, is not part of that equation.

If I was a Taipei war planner, I wouldn't waste resources on sinking them otoh. A few shorebased long range AShM batteries and hoping the reconaissance systems provide some targetting data would suffice. Above that would be wasting resources imv. The carriers bring to little firepower with them, compared to what the mainland.

@ wooki. No, I am not dissing Chinese science or ability to be innovative, nor their ability to build and work up a carrier.

What I am commenting on, is how a carrier as a platform, a concept, with fighters, UAV, UCAV, AEW fits into an assault force on Taiwan. Comparing to what the same resources used on other systems, and with the specific geography in mind, PLA-N carriers would be last thing Taipei should worry about.

Considering what is around of concepts and ideas (and fielded systems) for killing USN carriers, then a PLAN-N carrier would also be exposed to same threats and would have less countermeasures - more vulnerable.

Listen GD,

You have to stop this business of coming up with sound arguments and good conversation. This thread is about/motivated by carrier porn and the love of carriers, not about being rational and all that. But having said that I would have to agree with your sentiments and indeed, if I was a Chinese guy in charge, I would be thinking about something else, rather then making a carrier.

cheers

w

 

[crobato]

However, I would predict they will have been built by the time PLA-N gets their carrier.

I have grave doubts on that.

As far as I can see, area air defence against low level missiles is currently very lacking in the PLA-N. Point defence seems excellent.

You have at least two destroyers that can provide longer range AD against missiles, four frigates and counting and four destroyers capable of providing medium range defense.

What I am arguing, is that if I was the mainland war planner, with a given set of resources, then I would not use them on building carriers for the specific mission of attacking Taiwan. If they are around anyway, sure, but that is not the case. IMV a carrier would be inefficient use of resources for the specific mission of taking Taiwan. That they may be around for SLOC missions etc, is not part of that equation.

Whoever told you the carrier is for a Taiwan campaign? The carrier is intended for well beyond that. The PLAN is setting its sights well ahead. Similar reasons can be said on the PLAN boomers. Despite exercises and shows of force, intended to send a message to Taiwan (and to internal factions within China that PLAN is still committed), the PLAN is already looking well beyond that. Meaning no one seriously believe that Taiwan will be a serious issue, compared to potential issues that may arise around 2020 and so on.

 

[Grand Danois]

I have grave doubts on that.

Too bad when they show up.

You have at least two destroyers that can provide longer range AD against missiles, four frigates and counting and four destroyers capable of providing medium range defense.

I know. But they are not good considering the geometry of a low level ashm ingress. Then they are not very "area".

Whoever told you the carrier is for a Taiwan campaign? The carrier is intended for well beyond that. The PLAN is setting its sights well ahead.

If you read the thread, you'll see that I haven't argued that the carriers are for Taiwan use, quite the opposite.

 

[crobato]

Too bad when they show up.

Too bad when they don't. How many years have passed already? What was the original budget for? How much is it going to cost now?

I know. But they are not good considering the geometry of a low level ashm ingress. Then they are not very "area".

That affects all missiles, meaning radar horizon line of sight issues. Nonetheless, the PLAN does have four destroyers capable of long range aerial area defense (052C and 051C), four frigates and counting (054A) and six destroyers (052B and Sovs) with medium range (up to 50km) air defense.

 

[Grand Danois]

Too bad when they don't. How many years have passed already? What was the original budget for? How much is it going to cost now?

Time will tell.

That affects all missiles, meaning radar horizon line of sight issues. Nonetheless, the PLAN does have four destroyers capable of long range aerial area defense (052C and 051C), four frigates and counting (054A) and six destroyers (052B and Sovs) with medium range (up to 50km) air defense.

Yes, numbers is part of the solution. And it affects Western AWDs too. It is not only an issue of radius at sea level but also of how the ashm passes through that radius when aiming for other ships than the AWD. The effective radius is much much smaller and instrumented range of radars and max range of missiles matters much less. Number of sensors and employment of same, just as netcentrics matters. much more. Reaction time and speed of missiles is also part.

So to be effective it has to score high on these parameters. "Long range aerial defence" is not the same as area defence vs sea skimming missiles.

 

[Firehorse]

Quote: Originally Posted by Galrahn
I hope China builds carriers, I can't think of a better way for China to sink huge portions of national treasure than a couple first generation huge carriers.

Kind of like the way the Ming did with Zheng He's Treasure ships?
That's what the new carrier is all about, the new Zheng He Treasure ship.

If they kept those longer and built more ocean-going junks, our world would have been a lot different today. But that is a hypothetical topic.

Comparing to what the same resources used on other systems can do, and with the specific geography in mind, PLA-N carriers would be last thing Taipei should worry about.
Considering what is around of concepts and ideas (and fielded systems) for killing USN carriers, then a PLAN-N carrier would also be exposed to same threats and would have less countermeasures - i.e. more vulnerable.

I agree, but even if they guard against/succeed in preventing other powers intervention, those CVs will still assist land-based forces in a confrontation with Taiwan, and will have to be dealt with. If the PRC is possibly thinking about using BMs against carriers, why not ROC, or whatever name they'll have by then? Also, they could use hundreds of AShMs and/or drones in saturation attacks.

 

[Grand Danois]

I agree, but even if they guard against/succeed in preventing other powers intervention, those CVs will still assist land-based forces in a confrontation with Taiwan, and will have to be dealt with. If the PRC is possibly thinking about using BMs against carriers, why not ROC, or whatever name they'll have by then? Also, they could use hundreds of AShMs and/or drones in saturation attacks.

I thought you had set the condition that foreign powers didn't intervene...

The thing comes down to sortie generation. If we imagine a Kuznetsov ++ plus SU-3X, then we are maybe talking 70-80 jets on two carriers. The whole exercise is for the carrier to cycle the jets through the system at a meaningful rate. A 65,000t/SU-3X STOBAR combo doesn't sound generous in that respect.

On top of that it is a prime target, more vulnerable, and potentially a huge risk of losing face is attached to them whereever they go.

The Great Dry Land Carrier, i.e. mainland China, is just nearby and two or three regiments of SU-3X plus a squadron of tankers could end up providing just as much firepower as the two carriers.

So why take the risk?

 

[Firehorse]

I'm just allowing for alternatives.
Why does the USN maintains a carrier forward deployed in Japan, in addition to airbases bristling with USAF/JSDAF figthers there?
2 Chinese CVs could work in 12hr shifts, generating sorties uninterrupted in a 24hr period, for at least a few days in a row, in addition to land based aviation- which may not avoid being hit by LACMs/BMs. IMHO, the more fighter you have, the better, irrespective what bases they use.

 

[funtz]

On top of that it is a prime target, more vulnerable, and potentially a huge risk of losing face is attached to them wherever they go.

The Great Dry Land Carrier, i.e. mainland China, is just nearby and two or three regiments of SU-3X plus a squadron of tankers could end up providing just as much firepower as the two carriers.
So why take the risk?

What is the sortie rate generated through a STOBAR configuration? By what percentage is it lesser than a CATOBAR configuration(roughly)?

What is the sortie rate required for a Offensive operation? Offensive operation=what you imagine they will face.

The PRC is going to be big in Africa etc. looking for oil and resources stuff i guess, any sort of offensive capability (power projection i guess is the fancy word) will be required, carriers meet that role better (in my insig. opinion) than a bunch of missile launching subs, do you agree?

The more and more i see the Taiwan issue, the more it looks the same, i guess pulling a USA nfloorl: on Taiwan will never be a priority.

 

[crobato]

Time will tell.

Time is against Taiwan on this issue. It gets harder and harder as China grows in both economic and political clout. Back in 2002, it is easier to get a European nation to supply Taiwan a diesel sub or two than it would be in 2008. But then already in 2002, China already had enough clout to stop that.

Back then, the subs were intended to be Type 209s budged with turn of the century prices. The type is out of production, replaced by the much more expensive Type 214 that is at least 300 million dollars each and rising.

I have been arguing in the SDF that Taiwan has no other choice but to build the subs themselves. They already have 90% of the information, they can complete the 10% by hook or crook if they have not done already. They have not built a sub ever, but its a good time to start.

Yes, numbers is part of the solution. And it affects Western AWDs too. It is not only an issue of radius at sea level but also of how the ashm passes through that radius when aiming for other ships than the AWD. The effective radius is much much smaller and instrumented range of radars and max range of missiles matters much less. Number of sensors and employment of same, just as netcentrics matters. much more. Reaction time and speed of missiles is also part.

So to be effective it has to score high on these parameters. "Long range aerial defence" is not the same as area defence vs sea skimming missiles.

Still no different from China as it is to the West. Chinese destroyers and frigates should be able to pop AshMs as soon as they rise above the radar horizon. The new destroyers and frigates are no longer being equipped with the HQ-7 stereotype.