PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Operating a CATOBAR carrier would be orders of magnitude more complex than what they have now. Having the hardware is one thing but you still need to accumulate years, or even decades, of experience in order to become fully proficient at using it.

The Chinese fleet is large but I would question just how combat ready it is. Part of me thinks that a large portion of the Chinese fleet could end up as blazing wrecks within a few days of any hostilities commencing. Perhaps that is my Western bias coming through but I just can't see the Chinese matching their massive material growth with the growth of experienced personnel capable of operating their new equipment.

Take their new CATOBAR carrier for example. I have had as much experience at operating CATOBAR carriers as anyone in the Chinese navy. As for EMALS, well even the American's are struggling to get that to work.

Perhaps I am being optimistic but I still think China is a decade or more away from being ready to fight any sort of naval war.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Operating a CATOBAR carrier would be orders of magnitude more complex than what they have now. Having the hardware is one thing but you still need to accumulate years, or even decades, of experience in order to become fully proficient at using it.

The Chinese fleet is large but I would question just how combat ready it is. Part of me thinks that a large portion of the Chinese fleet could end up as blazing wrecks within a few days of any hostilities commencing. Perhaps that is my Western bias coming through but I just can't see the Chinese matching their massive material growth with the growth of experienced personnel capable of operating their new equipment.

Take their new CATOBAR carrier for example. I have had as much experience at operating CATOBAR carriers as anyone in the Chinese navy. As for EMALS, well even the American's are struggling to get that to work.

Perhaps I am being optimistic but I still think China is a decade or more away from being ready to fight any sort of naval war.
Yes but don't forget their missile capacity is large and any naval war would be under their radar, missile and air coverage. They have a very good A2AD capability within the First Island Chain and all they have to do is keep the USN CBG 1,000 nm from the PRC coast. That basically castrates the main USN CBG strike capability. You can't hit it if you can't see it or get to it.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The other question is how good are long range Chinese missiles really wrt tracking and actually hitting a moving carrier. Even more importantly, how effective will Western naval anti missile defence capability be? Submarines may very well define the outcome of any confrontation within the next decade.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The other question is how good are long range Chinese missiles really wrt tracking and actually hitting a moving carrier.
Good question but we can say with certainty that the Chinese are extensively practicing and improving/refining their ability t do so with the aid of various ISR assets.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Part of me thinks that a large portion of the Chinese fleet could end up as blazing wrecks within a few days of any hostilities commencing.
Depends on what they do. The PLAN certainly isn't silly enough to sortie out for a massive Jutland or Leyte Gulf type engagement. They will attempt to first attrite the USN by a variety of means before committing large surface groups. It won't play into the strengths of the U.S. and its allies.

Perhaps that is my Western bias coming through but I just can't see the Chinese matching their massive material growth with the growth of experienced personnel capable of operating their new equipment.
They way I see I it matters not that the PLAN does not have personnel who are not as experienced or capable as USN counterparts. They don't have to be to cause serious damage. They'll be operating on their home turf; are motivated and will be well acquaint with their equipment. It will be a serious miscalculation to think that PLAN or Chinese inferiority in experience, training or equipment will be deciding factors in a major conflict.
 
Last edited:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Good question but we can say with certainty that the Chinese are extensively practicing and improving/refining their ability t do so with the aid of various ISR assets.
As there's zero transparency with the Chinese military we simply do not know how realistic any of their tests are. Do we even have reason to believe they would have staged a realistic test?

Stop and think about what a realistic test is. That would have required a target ship that could decide where it wanted to move, was capable of changing its speed and could move at least at the speed of a conventional warship USN frigate, even if we assume it wasn't going to move at the speed of a nuclear-powered carrier or AB destroyer. It would also require Chinese assets being able to locate the target in a certain timeframe to simulate the danger of them (the tracking assets) being attacked.

I have litte reason to think that they have not hit moving targets. However, it would have been a lot easier to hit a target moving at the speed of a commerical ship - let's say 18 knots - that was on a fixed course, where it was known where the vessel was and where it was likely to be when the missile hit it. And, of course, with no attempts to intercept the missile or attack tracking aircraft.

China will try to improve their missiles, but they are not going to for one minute admit that they currently would be unlikely to hit a carrier, or indeed that they would struggle to make one that will ever be likely to do that. The propaganda and fear factor is simply too valuable for them, both domestically and internationally. USN carriers are a key part of the fleet, if they can sow the seeds of doubt into the minds of the American government about the safety of those carriers they may be able to deter the US intervening if or when China attacks one of its neighbours.

None of this means the threat should be dismissed, and it is sensible to keep working on anti ballistic missile defences for the surface fleet. However, I think there are some people who are, whether they realise it or not, simply accepting Chinese propaganda at face value that they have or will have an effective counter to carriers. Whether that's out of awe and/or fear, that's not logical. You One must look at how realistic any of the tests staged could be, as well as look at countermeasures like the SM-6.

Don't forget, we've been here before. When the PLAN acquired Sovremennys with Sunburns and Kilo-class submarines with Clubs, there were people in full headless-chicken-mode saying that the carriers were now going to be useless to fight a war with China. What happened? The USN just ensured it improved its defences.

If you we don't look at this logically, you're it's inviting defeatism and would give China exactly what it wants, a militarily compliant US without having to fire a single shot.

They'll be operating on their home turf; are motivated and will be well acquaint with their equipment.
This isn't a land war in China, nor is this the 16th century in the English Channel where knowing the weather, location of sandbanks, etc is vital. The PLA remains a military whose most recent "combat" experience is massacring civilians (and pushing foreign unarmed soldiers down ravines).

More importantly, don't think for a minute that USN surface vessels are going to be operating within range of Chinese land based AShM batteries, at least in the inital stages of the conflict. I would assume that the surface fleet is initially mostly going to be standing back to the East, North and perhaps South of Taiwan, creating safe corridors for supplies and guarding the carriers. It's only the submarines that would be getting nearer to China.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
As there's zero transparency with the Chinese military we simply do not know how realistic
How "realistic" they are is indeed the question yet ee also cannot assume that the Chinese are not attempting to make them as realistic as they possibly can. China indeed may not be transparent but within the PLA [without all the progaganda and rhetoric intended for a foreign and domestic audience] there would be an accurate and realistic understanding of what it can or can't really do.

You must look at how realistic any of the tests staged could be, as well as look at countermeasures like the SM-6
Fully agreed but I'm not suggesting that the so called "carrier killers" are really up to the task or are a "game changer" - far from it. I may not be familiar but I'm somewhat aware of the challenges of detecting, tracking and hitting a moving target which is defended, is trying not to found and is operating in a large body of water.

If you don't look at this logically, you're inviting defeatism
I assure you that I do try to look at it logically but also realistically, free of any bias or from any particular lens. I also would assume that like its potential opponents, China has put it a lot of thought into how a particular conflict would play out and would do its best to maximise its strenghts, whilst mitigating its weaknesses. After years of observation it would also have a realistic and accurate understanding of what its potential opponents are capable of.

I also try to avoid assuming that just because the U.S. and allies enjoys superiority in training, experience and other areas, that these will be deciding factors in ensuring victory over China should conflict erupt. Should war erupt - I hope it doesn't as both sides have nukes - China will ve the most challenging and capable opponent the U.S. has faced since 1945.
.
This isn't a land war in China, nor is this the 16th century in the English Channel where knowing the weather,
I'm aware that this isn't a land war in ancient China and that we're no longer in the 16th century. My reference to "home turf" was to emphasise that the PLAN would be operating well within the range of friendly airpower and land based missiles, will have shorter lines of communications and in waters it's familiar with [certain advantages to that].

More importantly, don't think for a minute that USN surface vessels are going to be operating within range of Chinese land based AShM batteries
Of course they won't, at least not until Chinese defences have been degraded to a certain extent but the fact remains that only so much reliance can be placed on land based bombers and cruise missiles. To deploy air power effectively the carriers would eventually have to close the range to the targets.

The Chinese on the other hand will be atempting to locate the carriers as early and far away as possible in order to try and hit them with a variety of means.

Complicating matters will be the EW and cyber attacks both sides will be employing.

There is also the possibility of war erupting unexpectedly and suddenly with USN carriers already off China's coast or off Taiwan [placed there as a show of force or on a routine cruise] , having already been tracked and well within range of various Chinese assets.
 
Last edited:

Toptob

Active Member
Yeah, I have to say this forum is always a haven of reason and common sense. But I have to agree with @Musashi_kenshin that there are a lot of sources out there spewing unwarranted panic, and it's the same "carrier killer" rhetoric all over again. Just like in the cold war, when ASM's where coming into service, and carrier groups where going to be wiped out by swarms of ASM's! But it still took a good amount of time before those weapons where refined to a point where they could be relied upon as an effective weapon. And by that time new counter-measures had also been put in place.

That is not to say that ASM's aren't dangerous weapons, nor that these new chinese ballistic/ hypersonic (ulllllltrasonic!!!) wonder weapons could be somewhat effective. But as @Musashi_kenshin mentioned, targeting a weapon is a complicated process. And to do it well you still want to be at least somewhat close to your target. Therefore I highly doubt that the Chinese are going to hit much out beyond the first island chain.

But the bigger problem is that unlike members on this forum, most people don't know their head from their ass when it comes to defense related matters. And the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into full view quickly when more generalized media and pundits start talking about "carrier killers" and other topics on defense. While we know that something like that deserves a thorough and thoughtful discussion because they are complicated matters, most media generally only want to pump hype for clicks and likes. And in the process they end up inserting a lot of frankly ridiculous notions into the public consciousness.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah, I have to say this forum is always a haven of reason and common sense. But I have to agree with @Musashi_kenshin that there are a lot of sources out there spewing unwarranted panic, and it's the same "carrier killer" rhetoric all over again. Just like in the cold war, when ASM's where coming into service, and carrier groups where going to be wiped out by swarms of ASM's! But it still took a good amount of time before those weapons where refined to a point where they could be relied upon as an effective weapon. And by that time new counter-measures had also been put in place.

That is not to say that ASM's aren't dangerous weapons, nor that these new chinese ballistic/ hypersonic (ulllllltrasonic!!!) wonder weapons could be somewhat effective. But as @Musashi_kenshin mentioned, targeting a weapon is a complicated process. And to do it well you still want to be at least somewhat close to your target. Therefore I highly doubt that the Chinese are going to hit much out beyond the first island chain.

But the bigger problem is that unlike members on this forum, most people don't know their head from their ass when it comes to defense related matters. And the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into full view quickly when more generalized media and pundits start talking about "carrier killers" and other topics on defense. While we know that something like that deserves a thorough and thoughtful discussion because they are complicated matters, most media generally only want to pump hype for clicks and likes. And in the process they end up inserting a lot of frankly ridiculous notions into the public consciousness.
The problem with different sources is sorting the wheat from the chaff. If you're a city boy you won't have a clue what I mean. Wheat gives you flour from which you make bread and other edibles. Chaff is inedible for humans, so of no nutritional value. With these sources you're having to determine the ones that are of value and the rubbish ones. It can be difficult because few will be unbiased. It's called critical reading and is an acquired skill. I learned it as an undergraduate at university.

WRT the PLA, never take anything for granted and never underestimate them. First rule of warfare is don't underestimate your enemy. Because if you do you are going to get your arse handed to you on a plate. That's what cost the British Malaya and Singapore because they arrogantly believed the Japanese to be second rate and unable to win against a white mans army. The same thinking cost the Americans the Philippines. Rule #2, the plan is only good until first contact with the enemy. Never expect the enemy to fight the way that you want them or have planned them for them to fight. If you think this way you will most likely lose. The PLA will have their strategies and we don't know what they are. We do know that they still follow the Maoist doctrine of active defence, but that they have changed their force structures and doctrines over the last 30 years.

They are innovative as well. However the biggest problem we have is that they are so secretive that we know very little about their doctrine and strategies. Some tactics have been seen in video of exercises but that asks more questions than it answers. So it's far better to err on the side of caution rather than be over confident. That's why I tend to be treat their capabilities with more respect because of that.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
There is a lot we don't know about the PLAN and there is a lot we do.

We know it has grown, modernized and become a force to be reckoned with in any future political stand off.

In broad terms we should really look at where they were a generation ago compared to today.
What options did their fleet a generation ago give their government compared to today.
What options will this growing fleet give to government in the years ahead.

Debating all the cogs on the maritime power wheel is understandable
The ships ,their systems and weapons, their crew and the support base that galvanizes all this together to create a force of maritime power is fair enough.

What they have achieved in a generation is both impressive. and for the west concerning.

I certainly would not underestimate their capability today, nor would I under value the attributes experience and resources of the west.

We certainly would not of had this conversation re China's maritime power a generation ago.

I trust all side don't need to test each other capabilities.

Uncertain times ahead.


Regards S
 

At lakes

Well-Known Member
stumbled across this write up of the Type 003 Carrier for the PLAN. I have no idea if the details provided in the write up are accurate for that matter i have never heard of the magazine.. Sorry if this is a duplicate of something that has already been posted but I could not find any thing.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
stumbled across this write up of the Type 003 Carrier for the PLAN. I have no idea if the details provided in the write up are accurate for that matter i have never heard of the magazine.. Sorry if this is a duplicate of something that has already been posted but I could not find any thing.
I have come across it before and wasn't overly impressed. They aren't a patch on Xavier. As to their claims about the Type 003 I would treat them with a healthy dose of salt because not a lot is publicly known about the ship, its fitout, and its final air wing configuration. We do know that it will be fitted with EMALS and I recently read somewhere that it is to be fitted with three catapults. Unfortunately I didn't keep the reference.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Another Type 075 LHD commissioned into the PLAN.

This article from Naval news.



Impressive ships with two commissioned and a third conducting sea trials.
Some talk of a planned total of eight, but I have not seen anything to confirm a forth has started construction at this stage.

Talk also of a Type 076 ship which would have a catapult and arresting gear..................I wonder!

Lots to speculate about.

With three LHD's and some eight Type 071 Amphibious Transport Docks, the PLAN already have an impressive amphibious maritime reach.

Watch this space


Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Another Type 075 LHD commissioned into the PLAN.

This article from Naval news.



Impressive ships with two commissioned and a third conducting sea trials.
Some talk of a planned total of eight, but I have not seen anything to confirm a forth has started construction at this stage.

Talk also of a Type 076 ship which would have a catapult and arresting gear..................I wonder!

Lots to speculate about.

With three LHD's and some eight Type 071 Amphibious Transport Docks, the PLAN already have an impressive amphibious maritime reach.

Watch this space


Regards S
The PLAN are definitely punching their LHDs out. Eight will be a goodly sized fleet. The Type 076 are intriguing if they come to pass. An assault / light CV does make sense. I think that it's something that the USN needs to reassess.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Some foto and video which the article sourced from some Twitter. Shown new version of Chinese SSK. Seems the twitter source suspect it is for Type 39 for Export variants. Howerver nothing to be sure.

One thing though that China like many other defense assets, doing fast development of their existing version. They are trying catch up fast.

 
Last edited:

Toptob

Active Member
After a new small submarine class, a new unknown chinese naval program....totally not a mini-copy of the Zumwalt class of cruisers!

Interesting stuff! Especially them linking it to USV development. I didn't know the PLAN was this engaged in developing USV operations, but it seems logical that they would. The way I imagine such operations, they could represent a powerful force multiplier. And maybe a resurgence of smaller hullforms as unmanned vessels could balance some of the advantages and disadvantages of small missile boats.

One thing I don't get is the outriggers. Wouldn't they significantly impact the RCS and/or acoustic signature? Are they for seakeeping? Potentially letting them keep up with larger ships in rough seas and operating out in the open ocean?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting stuff! Especially them linking it to USV development. I didn't know the PLAN was this engaged in developing USV operations, but it seems logical that they would. The way I imagine such operations, they could represent a powerful force multiplier. And maybe a resurgence of smaller hullforms as unmanned vessels could balance some of the advantages and disadvantages of small missile boats.
They will have been at it for quite a while, but unlike the west and their Russian mates, they tend to be a tad secretive about their programs.
One thing I don't get is the outriggers. Wouldn't they significantly impact the RCS and/or acoustic signature? Are they for seakeeping? Potentially letting them keep up with larger ships in rough seas and operating out in the open ocean?
I was pondering that too. I suspect it would be for seakeeping more than anything else, offering stability.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
The China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) unveiled a model of a new 340-ton unmanned combat surface vehicle (UCSV) at the World Defense Show (WDS) 2022 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The chinese design looks similar to the Indonesian Klewang Class stealth trimaran patrolboat, which is 5 meter longer, but the chinese trimaran has a helicopterdeck aft, probably for VTOL UAVs.

 
Top