PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

[Sampanviking]

If you look carefully, you will see that China is building its modern navy in almost incremental steps and building specifically to meet the specific challenges of the immediate and near future. It is easy to miss this, because of the massive generational leap between the previous class of ships and the vessels now being mass produced.

Sure the PLAN today with only the next twenty, possibly even only ten, years in mind, but by so doing, they are building capable vessels for possible scenarios and able to do so at very reduced cost compared to the navies of fully developed nations.

Do these ships represent the cutting edge of Chinese Naval Technology? Good question and I suspect probably not, but they do represent the limit of there Naval capability. It is simply that building in excess of capability would be an unnecessary expense and deliver few tangible benefits.

China is a land power first and foremost and the development of power, influence and trade routes on the Eurasian/African landmass remains there primary objective with naval power projection a distant second. The PLAN is about securing the Chinese Seaboard and slowly pushing the balance of power projection away from its coast and territorial waters.

 

[STURM]

China is a land power first and foremost and the development of power, influence and trade routes on the Eurasian/African landmass remains there primary objective with naval power projection a distant second. The PLAN is about securing the Chinese Seaboard and slowly pushing the balance of power projection away from its coast and territorial waters.

An author, I think it was Robert Kaplan, mentioned that China's land borders are more secure now than they have been for the past centuries and that plays a huge part in China being able to expand or venture out far beyond its shores to maintain its long term security interests.

 

[SpartanSG]

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.

These days, they have non-stop deployments to the Gulf of Aden (i.e., there is always a PLA Navy group operating there).

In addition, they have more "show-the-flag" kind of deployments to numerous other countries as compared to the past. Part of this may be to sell their warship designs (such as to Pakistan?). Others are symbolic deployments to show their close ties, or to establish defence ties. Think "Peace Ark" went on a round the world trip?

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.

I think they are trying to develop capabilities to safeguard their own backyard. The ability of foreign invaders operating off their coast with impunity during the late Qing Dynasty and Sino-Japanese War is not something they want to go through again.

And with their economy at what it is today (2nd largest in the world), they do have the means to fund the PLA to be the 2nd most powerful military on earth.

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".

Quite a few senior PRC officials have said that (think even the CCP Secretary General might have said it). And have a CBG means that they will dominate the South China Sea and the all remaining maritime territorial disputes they have. The other claimants are aware of this and some are preparing accordingly (such as Vietnam's purchase of 6 Kilo class subs).

If you look carefully, you will see that China is building its modern navy in almost incremental steps and building specifically to meet the specific challenges of the immediate and near future. It is easy to miss this, because of the massive generational leap between the previous class of ships and the vessels now being mass produced.

Very true.

China is a land power first and foremost and the development of power, influence and trade routes on the Eurasian/African landmass remains there primary objective with naval power projection a distant second. The PLAN is about securing the Chinese Seaboard and slowly pushing the balance of power projection away from its coast and territorial waters.

While it is true that China is a land power, its economic life blood lies on the sea now. It needs imports of raw materials to power its manufacturing, construction and energy. And it exports manufactured goods to foreign markets. If the PLA Navy cannot safeguard these routes, than it will probably be seen to have failed.

An author, I think it was Robert Kaplan, mentioned that China's land borders are more secure now than they have been for the past centuries and that plays a huge part in China being able to expand or venture out far beyond its shores to maintain its long term security interests.

Yes, it was Robert Kaplan indeed.

Personally, I see this as a strategic move by PRC to resolve as much of its land border disputes as possible so that it can focus on the seas. An added benefit of this is that it allows the defence spending priority to shift from the army to the PLA Navy.

2 aspects are worth pointing out:

1. The PLA (Army, Navy Air Force and 2nd Artillery) belongs to CCP. They swear loyalty to CCP, not to PRC. It is the military of the party, not of the state. CCP isn't about to change this.

2. Throughout Chinese history, there has always been the threat of a military coup. With the recent Bo Xilai saga, the possibility of a modern military coup (by land forces) has come back into the lime-light.

Therein lies the dilemma for PRC/CCP leadership. They need to spend enough on their military to ensure it has the capability to defend their interests, and yet not concentrate too much power in the hands of a few such that it will be easy to stage a coup.

While there are a lot of concerns at the moment about an assertive PRC, it is certainly much better compared to the possibility of a PRC ruled by a junta.

 

[Sampanviking]

Are Sea Lanes as critical to China as they are to the USA?

The Eurasian/Africa Landmass is still the worlds most important territory. This is where most of the worlds people and the worlds money still lives. Controlling the movement of wealth from one end of this landmass to the other, remains the worlds most significant activity. China is a part of this landmass and can reach the vast majority of it directly overland. The revival of the old Silk Roads is China's top priority and its land routes are its preference today, just as they have always been. This is why China has invested so much into the SCO and lent/participated in key Infrastructure projects in key land corridors across the continents.

The US is not part of the landmass and so has no option but to operate as a Maritime Power to reach/control these markets.

For China to try and emulate the US power model would be to ignore its own advantages and play to America's instead (to its own detriment). We know from experience that China does not do this. The current and foreseeable role of the PLAN is to keep other powers at arms length from its own territorial waters (as claimed) and also to help bypass key land choke points, such as the link between Africa and Asia . I think it is little coincidence that a Chinese patrol has taken up permanent residence in the Arabian Sea and is building substantial reception/transit ports on the coasts of both South West Asia and East Africa.

 

[SpartanSG]

Are Sea Lanes as critical to China as they are to the USA?

The Eurasian/Africa Landmass is still the worlds most important territory. This is where most of the worlds people and the worlds money still lives. Controlling the movement of wealth from one end of this landmass to the other, remains the worlds most significant activity. China is a part of this landmass and can reach the vast majority of it directly overland. The revival of the old Silk Roads is China's top priority and its land routes are its preference today, just as they have always been. This is why China has invested so much into the SCO and lent/participated in key Infrastructure projects in key land corridors across the continents.

That is an interesting point that you have brought up.

There are multiple issues with overland routes in Central Asia:

1. It needs the cooperation of numerous countries for the safe transport of goods over land.

2. A lot of the terrain is very rugged/mountainous and has little infrastructure (in terms of proper roads & rails).

3. Quite a bit of the overland route crosses areas with security issues (e.g., Afghanistan) where infrastructure/vehicles/pipes may be attacked.

4. There is also the issue of tolls/duties (to put it nicely) for transportation of goods across some of these areas.

All these factors mean that it is a lot more efficient and safer to transport stuff on the seas (global commons) as compared to the land (ships carry a lot more stuff for a very small number of crew. e.g., an Ultra Large Crude Carrier can carry 500,000 tons of crude oil and is operated by a crew of ~20).

While it is true China is trying to develop more land routes to reduce their dependency on the sea lanes, the amount of stuff that is currently being transported over land is a very small portion of sea-based transportation, simply because of the efficiency of sea transportation. The real significant overland options are pipe-lines for supply of oil and gas, but these may get blown up if built in areas with poor security.

With regards to SCO, I see it as China trying to consolidate its influence amongst the states in Central Asia. IIRC, in its early years India was not a member of SCO. But certainly China is trying to use SCO as a platform to develop the states in Central Asia so that its own western borders are safer. The spin-off benefit is that overland transportation can potentially become safer too. But in terms of volume, it will not be able to match transportation by sea.

The sea carries ~90% of world trade:

Shipping and World Trade : Key Facts

For China to try and emulate the US power model would be to ignore its own advantages and play to America's instead (to its own detriment). We know from experience that China does not do this. The current and foreseeable role of the PLAN is to keep other powers at arms length from its own territorial waters (as claimed) and also to help bypass key land choke points, such as the link between Africa and Asia . I think it is little coincidence that a Chinese patrol has taken up permanent residence in the Arabian Sea and is building substantial reception/transit ports on the coasts of both South West Asia and East Africa.

From what I can see, China is not trying to emulate any particular country. Rather, China is learning from the experience of other countries and doing what they deem is necessary to safeguard their own interests.

The PLA Navy's constant anti-piracy patrols actually serve multiple purposes:

1. As a means to train their own personnel in long deployments overseas and thereby gain experience in power projection.

2. To test their hardware and develop their doctrines for such deployments. From these experience, they can develop better hardware and doctrines for their next round of build-up.

3. It is a legitimate deployment to far-flung oceans that is actually welcomed by the international shipping community.

4. To show to their own people that they are right up there with the rest of the world's naval powers.

5. To build linkages with the countries in the area as well as the various navies operating in the area.

 

[History1]

China is surrounded by many nations that are opposed to any move on China's part to violate their economic zones (200-mile). China is a nation that does not possess much open, unfettered access to the sea. This is a reality that they must recognize, acknowledge and accept. Their own coastal economic zone intersects with those of Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and tiny but wealthy Brunei and Singapore. Just east of China in the Pacific is Guam, and the vast expanse U.S. Pacific Territories, as well as the Federated States of Micronesia.
In the sense of being "landlocked", China is truly "sea locked". It has, really, only a 200-mile coastal zone with little or no open access to the Pacific, because of the complexity of it's proximity to other nations and the adjacent sectors of the Pacific. This is what geology has bequeathed it.
Unlike the USA, Canada (both with unfettered oceanic seaboards on both sides; Pacific AND Atlantic), and other nations like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, India, Australia, South Africa, other African nations, United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland and even Mexico and Peru, China must observe the realities of it's relationship to the ocean. It is in fact, making many mistakes right now by building up a large, potent navy. What for?
One of the obvious, to the whole world, problems China may start is the situation in the Spratly Islands off the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. These waters are not at all part of China's economic zone or near it's coastal waters, but wholly shared by the four nations mentioned above. To attempt to "flex" it's might in naval terms there would be a gross violation of the sovereign maritime economic zones of those nations - nothing short of an act of naked aggression in full disregard of those nations and their regional integrity. It would be belligerent aggression intent on illegal annexation of the physical territory/maritime economic zone of other nations.
The Paracel Islands that are equally shared by Vietnam and China (by virtue of Hainan) are another "hotspot" where China may simply imagine that it belongs to China alone. But this would be incorrect; it is equally in proximity to Vietnam as it is to Hainan Island. Therefore, Vietnam has equal jurisdiction of the Islands, and therefore the "ownership" of those islands should be bisected equally between China and Vietnam. It is obviously an simple matter; but China may turn it into a complicated one.
China's behavior is beginning to indicate trouble ahead; observe it's displeasure regarding it's restricted lanes connecting it to the Pacific high seas through Taiwan and Japan's territorial maritime zones. This is an irritant to China. It's shipping has to pass through the two nation's maritime zones, before China's shipping can reach it's own Pacific maritime zone. This is something China must simply recognize and acknowledge. They are nearly on the verge of announcing that it has the right to change these physical facts by ignoring it and taking control of it by might (naval might). To some degree, China also must respect the economic maritime zone of Korea by virtue of Korea's side of the Yellow Sea, which is really a gargantuan bay shared equally by Korea and China.
The so-named "East China Sea", is, like the "Sea of Japan", poorly termed. Just as the "Sea of Japan" should really be called the Korea-Japan Sea, the "East China Sea" is really something like the "Taichija Sea" (Taiwan-China-Japan Sea). Or perhaps it should not be called anything at all; for it is a sector of the Pacific that is shared by the coastlines of all three nations, and in fact, four, by virtue of Cheju-do island, Korea. This means that due to the physical reality of Cheju-do, a small sector of the "East China Sea" is actually Korea's economic maritime zone.
The "East China Sea" is very interesting. It is not the high seas; it is enclosed by and sectioned off from the Pacific high seas by Japan's Ryuku Island chain, and made into a small sea by the landmass of Taiwan. Taiwan, therefore, turns it into a "sea" that is "apart" from the Pacific Ocean.
All four nations equally share this sea.
There should really be no naval program there by any of the nations involved. They should really only be patrolling inside of their own 200-mile maritime economic zones. To practice any sort of naval maneuvers here is nothing short of idiotic. Four powerful modern nations each with vibrant economies to boast in their own rights all steaming around with navies in such confined, restricted waters where their economic maritime zones all converge almost immediately, simultaneously? China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan should convene and come to logical, rational, obvious conclusion and agreement over this sector of their shared interest in terms of shipping access and cooperative harmony. They need to; they have to.
China's naval buildup? It's posturing? It is rather a shame that China is building up such a navy. What for? It's truly ridiculous. What nation, or even nations, (who?) is going to threaten China, in any form or way whatsoever? Why, the answer is, nobody! China is simply being a nuisance right now in world affairs by wasting billions of it's financial resources by building a "built-up" navy.
Why does China need aircraft carrier(s)?! It's ridiculous, to put it mildly. The entire Pacific approach to it's national shores and coastline would be blanketed by it's land-based missiles and within range of it's modern aircraft. Nothing could nor will ever threaten it's coastline, economic maritime zone or it's territorial integrity. It's landmass not vast; it is immense. It is the world's fourth largest country. Bear in mind that this is in relation to Russia, Canada and the United States. It is almost exactly the same size as the United States - bear in mind that this includes Alaska! And it actually has MORE land than the United States, because a vast area of the United States is actually not land but water - in the form of the Great Lakes. China has the third AND sixth largest rivers of the world wholly inside it's borders. Three more of the world's 12 largest rivers are partly or mostly in China! One in every five human beings in the planet is Chinese!! And that is not including all of the Chinese persons all across the globe in the millions residing in other countries! China has a BILLION people, and then, ANOTHER THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR MILLION people. That is over ONE BILLION people MORE than the ENTIRE population of the United States!!
Why does China, of all countries, need to build up a NAVY of all things. It is clear that China, among other reasons (by its leadership), is mainly "flexing" it's new found affluence and economic $$ power in the form of building up a navy. It would well serve itself by building more competitive trade shipping, rather than wasting it's time, resources and energy on military naval machinery and technology. If it's national security it's worried about, it may as well simply augment it's air force and land-based defense missile system - into what would essentially be the largest and most potent air system in the world.
CHINA?! Worried about IT'S national security? As if any nation or nation(s) could ever pose the most remote threat to China!!

 

[RobWilliams]

Thread necromancy, but the best place to put this

Liaoning and her battlegroup have finished training in the SCS and there's been photos released of the battlegroup.

http://alert5.com/2014/01/01/photos...iationNews+(Alert+5+-+Military+Aviation+News)

It consists of

• 1 x Aircraft carrier
• 3 x Type 054A frigates
• 1 x Type 051C destroyer
• 1 x Type 052C destroyer
• 1 x Type 071 LPD
• 2 x submarines*

Couldn't spot any replenishment ships of any flavour which isn't surprising given the location, but overall seems like a well rounded battlegroup. Bit curious about the LPD however.

*not that hot on Chinese submarines and i couldn't properly identify them like the surface ships. One is much longer than the other, more stubby boat.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thread necromancy, but the best place to put this

Liaoning and her battlegroup have finished training in the SCS and there's been photos released of the battlegroup.

Alert 5 » Photos: Liaoning battle group - Military Aviation News

It consists of

• 1 x Aircraft carrier
• 3 x Type 054A frigates
• 1 x Type 051C destroyer
• 1 x Type 052C destroyer
• 1 x Type 071 LPD
• 2 x submarines*

Couldn't spot any replenishment ships of any flavour which isn't surprising given the location, but overall seems like a well rounded battlegroup. Bit curious about the LPD however.

*not that hot on Chinese submarines and I couldn't properly identify them like the surface ships. One is much longer than the other, more stubby boat.

One possibly is that LPD filling in for an AOR until they get an AOR up and running. They may not have a replenishment ship quite ready yet so use the LPD to fill that role as an avatar until the ship(s) come online. They wouldn't be silly enough to plan a CBG without replenishment ships.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the Type 071 LPD also does double duty as an ASW parking station on the extreme edges of the range ring, it also contributes to the expeditionary role if triggered.

the subs have to be nukes if they are going to be meaningful as the kilos and their conventional ilk are too noisy at fleet speed

 

[the concerned]

One thing that the new CBG provides is a realistic tool to train against. So now in future military exercises the Chinese military are going to become more capable of conducting anti CBG operations whereas before they where just hypotheatical missions.

 

[Volkodav]

I am curious as to the capability of the PLAN's area air defence and missile defence systems? I haven't encountered much at all on any increase in capability in these areas.

 

[RobWilliams]

One possibly is that LPD filling in for an AOR until they get an AOR up and running. They may not have a replenishment ship quite ready yet so use the LPD to fill that role as an avatar until the ship(s) come online. They wouldn't be silly enough to plan a CBG without replenishment ships.

My thinking was that given it was trials in near proximity to the Chinese mainland was that there isn't particularly the need for permanently assigned replenishment vessels for the trials, as an explanation about why there wasn't any pictures of any about.

@GF in that case, the subs have to be one Type 091 & one Type 093. The Type 093's are to replace the Type 091's in service.

@the concerned

Works both ways, their air force/naval air can practice against attacking a CBG and the CBG can defend against air attack. But even then it's only useful to a certain degree, USN capabilities and CONOPS are very different to China.

@Volk IIRC they're building a pair of Type 052D DDGs with a new AESA radar, but the info i've seen generally comes from traditional Chinese ambiguity. The pair they've seen being built only went public when they were snapped in the shipyard i think.

 

[CB90]

@Volk IIRC they're building a pair of Type 052D DDGs with a new AESA radar, but the info i've seen generally comes from traditional Chinese ambiguity. The pair they've seen being built only went public when they were snapped in the shipyard i think.

Some articles you may find interesting on their modernization program:
2008 era, but still enlightening: China Copies Russian Ship Technology For Use and Profit | SIGNAL Magazine
More recent: China Employs Ships As Weapon Test Platforms | SIGNAL Magazine

 

[gf0012-aust]

Some articles you may find interesting on their modernization program:
2008 era, but still enlightening: China Copies Russian Ship Technology For Use and Profit | SIGNAL Magazine
More recent: China Employs Ships As Weapon Test Platforms | SIGNAL Magazine

my fav mag fortunately work pays for it...
the chinese have also copied french, (Lafayette) and australian (bastardised 2208) designs

its almost easier to ask what they haven't adopted or modified - esp when you look at all 3 traditional services.

the bigger (non weapons system) headache will be when they work out how to copy and mass produce MTU's

 

[richardparker07]

China needs three aircraft carriers, writes naval researcher


"China should have at least three aircraft carriers to defend its national interests at sea, a mainland naval expert said, adding that criticism overseas of an expansion of the fleet was an overreaction.

Three carriers would just meet the most basic demands of China's navy, said Li Jie, a researcher at the Naval Military Studies Research Institute."

"Among three carrier fighting groups, just one would able to carry out operational missions because one would be used for training, while the third would have to undergo maintenance," he said

Read Forum rules - no cross linking
Also please not when adding posts we expect people to add their own insights - anyone can copy and paste - we expect people to engage

 

[bdique]

PLAN recently had a show of force with a Type 071 LPD, a 052B and a 052C DDG being sent to the James Shoal. This spot is roughly 80km from mainland East Malaysia. The three ships represent some of the latest ships acquired by the South Seas Fleet of the PLAN.

Link1: Yahoo!

Link 2(in Chinese - article identifies the Type 071 as the Chang Bai San, the 052C DDG as the Wuhan and the 052B DDG as the Haikou): å—海舰队远海训练编队巡航曾æ¯æš—æ²™(图)|编队|曾æ¯æš—æ²™_凤凰资讯

As to the presence of the LPD, I"m wondering if it could it be serving as a fleet replenishment vessel to the two destroyers since no reports of amphibious exercises were mentioned.

 

[bdique]

PLAN recently had a show of force with a Type 071 LPD, a 052B and a 052C DDG being sent to the James Shoal. This spot is roughly 80km from mainland East Malaysia. The three ships represent some of the latest ships acquired by the South Seas Fleet of the PLAN.

Link1: Yahoo!

Link 2(in Chinese - article identifies the Type 071 as the Chang Bai San, the 052C DDG as the Wuhan and the 052B DDG as the Haikou): å—海舰队远海è®*练编队巡航曾æ¯æš—æ²™(图)|编队|曾æ¯æš—æ²™_凤凰资讯

As to the presence of the LPD, I"m wondering if it could it be serving as a fleet replenishment vessel to the two destroyers since no reports of amphibious exercises were mentioned.

It seems that nobody was at James Shoal.

TLDM nafi PLAN ceroboh perairan negara

Article is in Malay but it basically says quotes the Royal Malaysian Navy Chief as saying that there were no Chinese ships in the vicinity of James Shoal. I highly doubt that the location of the mini flotilla was unintentionally misreported.

I'm puzzled: what exactly are the Chinese up to? Asserting their presence through misinformation?

 

[RobWilliams]

It's official, the Chinese are building a second carrier.

China working on second carrier - IHS Jane's 360

In terms of details, naturally very vague. Only described as an 'improvement' to their current carrier, speculation that 6 could be built depending on resources.

It cites another Chinese source saying the development of a Chinese EMALS has been successful. However no word if that'll be on the current carrier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

well, we'll see what they've learnt when we see where the elevators are....

 

[bdique]

well, we'll see what they've learnt when we see where the elevators are....

Let me guess. Given the present arrangement, are the elevators on the Liaoning too close to the launch points and too far from the arrestor gear?