Sampanviking
Banned Member
Huangpu yard appear ready to launch their first Type 056
We could see as many as 5 hulls in the water before the end of the year
We could see as many as 5 hulls in the water before the end of the year
PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy
- Thread starter Wall83
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #222
As China is pumping out warships the Russian shipbuilding industry seems hoplessly behind.Huangpu yard appear ready to launch their first Type 056
We could see as many as 5 hulls in the water before the end of the year
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #223
After during a fast check the following ships has been launched by China the lastest 5 year.
14 Type-054A Frigates (atleast 1 more under construction)
4 Type-52C Destroyers (2 more under construction)
2 Type-071 Landing platsforms (1 more under constrction)
50-80 Type-22 fast missile boats (Production continues)
1 Type-056 Corvette (3 more under construction right now)
4-5 Type-094 SSBN Jin (more under construction)
4-5 Type-093 SSN Shang (more under construction)
6-8 Type-041 SSK submarines (more under construction)
Then add the ex-Varyag.
No country in the world exept the US can compete with theese numbers.
14 Type-054A Frigates (atleast 1 more under construction)
4 Type-52C Destroyers (2 more under construction)
2 Type-071 Landing platsforms (1 more under constrction)
50-80 Type-22 fast missile boats (Production continues)
1 Type-056 Corvette (3 more under construction right now)
4-5 Type-094 SSBN Jin (more under construction)
4-5 Type-093 SSN Shang (more under construction)
6-8 Type-041 SSK submarines (more under construction)
Then add the ex-Varyag.
No country in the world exept the US can compete with theese numbers.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Huangpo's ship is now in the water.
You can also clearly see two new Type 54a Frigates already in the water as well.
You can also clearly see two new Type 54a Frigates already in the water as well.
Looks like the chinese rendition of the LCS-1.
Huangpo's ship is now in the water.
You can also clearly see two new Type 54a Frigates already in the water as well.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Can;t say I really see it myself or am I missing something?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...the_U.S._4th_Fleet_area_of_responsibility.jpg
Looks alot like it but then so do alot of newer ships. The new turkish ones do to to me. Differences yes but in many ways similar.
Beatmaster
New Member
Those ships one the links provided look pretty good and seem to have some degree of stealth features incorporated.
What strikes me the most is actually the fact that the radar panel on the back (The grey rotating block on top of the flight hangar) of the ship seems very much the same as the dutch have on their zeven provinceen class frigs which is a bit bigger and black of color
Dutch Picture:
Chinese Picture:
Or am i mistaken? Infact when i look closely then it seems like the Chinese ship builders did have loads of western " pictures" to draw ideas from.
Or is it just me who seems to think that those ships look a lot like western designs?
I only hope that the internal automation, weapons and radar/tracking configurations does not match the western designs otherwise the USN might be in for a nasty surprise when it ever comes to a confrontation.
As for example the Dutch LCF frigates (Pure as a example as the Chinese Frigate does look alot like the Dutch LCF) are real marvels...and are formidable platforms.
And ill bet that any Chinese Captain would be pleased to have some copies floating around to play with.
I wonder if that mast which look alot like the Tales mast (If you strip it down and take away the little gadgets that are visible on the Chinese picture) does hide a near copy of Tales...
Btw does anyone know the radar capabilities that the latest Chinese Frigates have?
And how does that add up towards western designs as for example Tales seems to be one of the top dogs around.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Is it not more simply that if you want to incorporate specific technologies and features, the physics determine that you will end up with ships that share specific characteristics?
The main difference I can see between the LCS-1 and the Dutch ship is that they are both (effectively) Frigates with at least twice the tonnage of the Type 056.
The main difference I can see between the LCS-1 and the Dutch ship is that they are both (effectively) Frigates with at least twice the tonnage of the Type 056.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #230
In 2012 the ship production relly seems to have have been speeded up.
Atlest four production lines of surface warship seems to be in full speed.
The Type 22 missile boat
The Type 056 corvette
The Type 054A frigate
The Type 052C destroyer.
Then the latest news is that the Type 052D is in production. With a minimun of two ship already launched.
Atlest four production lines of surface warship seems to be in full speed.
The Type 22 missile boat
The Type 056 corvette
The Type 054A frigate
The Type 052C destroyer.
Then the latest news is that the Type 052D is in production. With a minimun of two ship already launched.
It's certainly looking interesting, a future Chinese CBG would be good to see.
Also, does anyone have anything solid on how many carriers China is going to build? I've seen 3, 4 or 5 whilst i've been trying to look it up.
Then supposedly the ones to be build will be based on the Varyag, so then all of them are going to be STOBAR carrying J-15 on board?
Don't think there have been any official announcements from China/PLA Navy about how many carriers they are going to build. Nonetheless, there is no lack of speculation about this topic on the internet.
In the past, I thought they will build 3 carriers, 1 for each fleet (i.e., North Sea Fleet, East Sea Fleet and South Sea Fleet). This is based on the following reasoning:
1. 3 carriers in PLA Navy allows it to have 1 operational at all times;
2. 1 carrier per fleet allows all 3 fleets to have CBG experience;
3. Each fleet will be able to develop their respective CBG doctrines for their area of responsibility; and
4. For "equality" between the 3 fleet commanders who are in contention to be PLA Navy Commander.
However, now that China has announced that the carrier will be a strategic asset under the direct command and control of Beijing (through CMC/PLA Navy HQ), it changes much of the basis listed above.
Nonetheless, my own perspective is that the PLA Navy will likely build 2 Varyag+ type carriers with conventional propulsion in order to:
1. Build up domestic experience in carrier design and construction;
2. Improve the designs based on experience from Varyag; and
3. Have some economies of scale for the air wing developed for Varyag (including shore and training infrastructure).
When they have built up enough experience (in designing, building and operating) in carriers, they will most likely move on the building nuclear powered ones (Chinese super-carriers). When that will happen is anyone's guess.
That does make sense, didn't really know much about the organisation of the Chinese Navy so that's true.
so 3 carriers for 3 fleets, that's logical, also it matches the projected Indian build up who're doing it directly because of the Chinese build up.
So really, in 50 - 60 years time (or however long until these carriers cash out) the next 'generation' of Chinese carriers are what're going to be really special in size, performance and air wing.
As much as I expect that China won't try create something that's on the same scale as the Ford (because of the doctrinal difference of use between the 2 navies), part of me expects they'll try it to be bigger and better than the USN carriers.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the PLA Navy is in serious need of a re-structure. Their current structure of 3 fleets was set-up at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and is predominantly intended for coastal defence against an attack from the sea (their experience from the latter portion of the Qing Dynasty and the Sino-Japanese War).
However, now that they have commitments to the Gulf of Aden anti-piracy patrols and more frequent far-flung deployments, they may need a different structure. However, having a new structure for frequent long-range deployments is politically sensitive, particularly with the various outstanding territorial disputes.
I think they need to determine their operational requirements, which will affect how they build their carriers (assuming they follow such a process). If they want their carriers to do far-flung deployments, than nuclear-powered supercarriers make sense. However, if the role of their carriers are to operate near their coast, than they may sacrifice endurance for capacity.
Just as the Soviets had a different concept for their naval power, so too may the Chinese as their PLA Navy matures.
How far flung are their deployments? I'm not 'in the know' on that issue for China but I can't really think of where they could really deploy their carriers globally, can only really think of just regional deployments.
3 fleets is what the IN are working towards, and it's a strategy they're fairly keen on so it's not especially neccesary.
Indeed, global deployments *usually* favour the nuclear route (the RN being the exception) but that brings with it such a massive cost penalty in infrastructure etc, so to be honest i'm really expecting them to stick to the conventional propulsion route.
If anything, my interpretation on why they're beefing up their navy is basically just to keep the USN out of regional affairs, so if this is the case, they'll stick close to their own oceans which'd favor conventional in a 2 main areas; carriers/SSKs
But if they REALLY want to be able to seriously challenge the USN, they'd have to seriously develop their SSN and ASW tactics and equipment IMO.
In the event of a future war or skirmish with India or with Uncle Sam, PLAN carriers could be used as far the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to prevent their merchant and tanker fleet from being interdicted.
In the next 3-4 decades, who's to say that China won't start deploying carrier groups around the world, just as the U.S. has been doing for decades? The geo-political environment could be very different then and China could have a number of valid reasons to have its carriers patrolling far from its shores.
That's true, it seems like it'd be a big balancing act though.
As the USN is - reportedly - basing 60% of it's assets in the Asia-Pacific region so that'd be say 6 USN CBG, not to mention the potential need to do the tango with Indian carriers either.
So if there's a PLAN CBG protecting shipping, 2 Varyag-based carriers (at most) to defend Chinese shores seems a bit inadequate really, if their intention is to be able to seriously deter the USN.
But I suppose that brings into play their air force and land based missiles like their "carrier killer".
I never really thought that the purpose of PLAN getting carriers was to deter the USN in China's backyard, which it can do with land, sea and air assets. From day one, my guess is that Chinese defence planners had other things in mind for using their carriers and using them in the Taiwan Straits or Sea of Japan against the USN was not top on the list.
I'm surprised as to why we haven't been hearing news about PLAN buying long range land base ASMs like the Bazalt, to be used for sea denial. Apart from their so-called 'carrier killer' and the Silkworm [which I'm not even sure is still operated], not much is known about their land based ASM capability. And off course they have land base C-801/C-80s, like the one used by Hezbollah against INS Hanit.
Well maybe I was bit a bit more specific, but I'm fairly sure the aim was to cement PRC military control over the South China Seas and just that general area and prevent external military influence. Or in other words "Yeah we've got disputes, but back off, we'll sort them out" i think.
Actually come to think of it, I can only really think of one Chinese official saying "aircraft carriers are the symbol of a great nation".
Well, as i'm sure you know, China's generally very opaque in regards to it's military.
They just seem to like the more highly valued weapons in term of "propaganda", which is an appauling way to describe it but it's how i'm seeing it.
Like the DF-21D, rather than publishing it was a land based anti-ship ballistic missile with such and such capabilities, it's been specifically referenced as a "carrier killer" being able to at least disable a Nimitz class carrier. Or at least the DF-21D has become synonymous with "carrier killer missile".
This is the sort of weapon China should be using, pushing any CBG away from mainland China out of the ranges where strike aircraft couldn't retaliate. Of course, the USN would deploy Burkes packed with SM-3/