PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Japan surrendered to US, not to USSR. The main reason of the poor defense of South Sakhalin and Kurils is the Japanese belief USSR would honor the Non Aggression Treaty between USSR and Japan which Japan honored in the war by not invading USSR from the east to help Germany.
You've just dismantled your own argument. Your initial claim was that the defense of Sakhalin is analogous to the defense of Taiwan and low casualties by Soviet forces are indicative. You now yourself claim that Sakhalin was poorly defended due to a diplomatic factor, that clearly doesn't apply to Taiwan. Taiwan is armed to the teeth, and is actively modernizing their military to try if not keep up with China, at least to present a credible deterrent to open invasion.
 

RoyZZConnor

Member
Made statements without supporting evidence. 12pts for 12 months
You've just dismantled your own argument. Your initial claim was that the defense of Sakhalin is analogous to the defense of Taiwan and low casualties by Soviet forces are indicative. You now yourself claim that Sakhalin was poorly defended due to a diplomatic factor, that clearly doesn't apply to Taiwan. Taiwan is armed to the teeth, and is actively modernizing their military to try if not keep up with China, at least to present a credible deterrent to open invasion.
Taiwan is far from armed to the teeth. Taiwanese F-16 are no match for J-10C let alone J-20. Taiwanese Kidd class are no match for Type 052D let alone Type 055. Taiwanese subs are not match for Chinese Type 636 Kilos. Not to mention China has KJ-2000 strategic AWACs and H-6K strategic bombers. Taiwan is only 180 km from mainland China. PL-15 has more range than that at 200 km. Taiwan would lose control of its airspace and coastal waters within a couple of days even if they decide to fight. It is far more lop sided compared to Argentina and Britain in the 1982 war in which Argentina had rather comparable equipment such as aircraft carrier, fighter jets.

 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Taiwan is far from armed to the teeth. Taiwanese F-16 are no match for J-10C let alone J-20.
The J-20 is relatively unknown at this time, and is available in tiny quantities. We can talk about it when more information becomes available. I'm not sure why you think Taiwanese F-16Vs are no match for the J-10C. Remember, they're not only purchasing new ones (deliveries on those aren't slated to finish until 2026 iirc) but they're also upgrading their existing fleet, if I understood correctly, to the same standard. It's also my understanding that they carry a very modern AESA radar, and have access to top of the line BVR missiles. While China has indigenous BVR missiles, with comparable ranges, I can't help but wonder how they will compare. The US has extensive air-to-air combat experience, China not so much. The US has flown combat missions with 4.5th generation aircraft against 4th generation adversaries. That kind of experience could mean that even if the tech levels are comparable (and I'm far from sold that they are) the side with more knowledge and experience could very well design a better weapon system. It would be a mistake to dismiss top of the line F-16 variants.

Taiwanese Kidd class are no match for Type 052D let alone Type 055.
This simply isn't how battles are fought. China would have to plan and execute a very complex multi-domain operation, and this is likely where the failures would come. Superior, on paper, ships and planes, still need to coordinate, communicate, and execute a large scale joint operation. And remember, the Kidd class isn't alone. Taiwan has a large fleet of frigates, and has recently purchased a sizable force of coastal AShMs. None of this is likely to surrender easily, and landing ships and troop transports are highly vulnerable to a battery or btln of coastal missile system. This means some of the warships have to spend time protecting the transports, while the rest have to be ready to deal with the Taiwanese Navy.

Taiwanese subs are not match for Chinese Type 636 Kilos.
It's not Taiwanese subs that Chinese Kilos would have to worry about but Taiwanese ASW, represented by a fleet of helos and capable P-3Cs. This means diverting combat aircraft to keeping enemy MPAs away from your submarines.

Not to mention China has KJ-2000 strategic AWACs
Both sides have AEW in comparable(~ish) quantities (can't seem to figure out how many of their smaller AEW they have). The KJ-2000 is larger (not sure what "strategic AWACS" refers to) but it's also China's first indigenous AEW design, with no previous experience. Taiwan has a mature system (E-2Ks) from the US.

and H-6K strategic bombers.
I'm not sure what the significance of this is. The advantage of larger bombers over tactical aircraft comes in combat range and payload, but given the scale of the conflict, Chinese tactical aircraft should be able to do the job. I'm sure the H-6K would get used for missile strikes, but it's hardly a decisive advantage.

Taiwan is only 180 km from mainland China. PL-15 has more range than that at 200 km.
How does the performance of a long range anti-air missile decline towards the margins of its engagement envelope? ;-)

Taiwan would lose control of its airspace and coastal waters within a couple of days even if they decide to fight. It is far more lop sided compared to Argentina and Britain in the 1982 war in which Argentina had rather comparable equipment such as aircraft carrier, fighter jets.
I don't know enough about the Falklands war to compare, but I don't see any evidence to confidently claim that the Taiwanese military would surrender in the face of an ultimatum, or that it would be a "short battle" (whatever that even means, you apparently think a 1.5 month-long campaign with thousands dead, and iirc ~150K forces involved from the Azeri side qualifies as a short battle, so by that standard maybe it would be a short battle?) I see a best case scenario for the PRC would involve large casualties taken, and huge resources expended ending in an eventual, quite bloody, victory. And while we're at it, how good is PLAN mine-sweeping capability? "Small" factors like that may turn out to play a far bigger role then how many Type 55s China has available.
 

RoyZZConnor

Member
Image not sourced as required by Forum Rules. 12 points for 12 months.
Chinese documentary showing training of J-15 pilots

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not necessarily unlimited but I think it's safe to say China has been a global power since at least 2000 BC and continues to be this day. Such naval projects are not unexpected. China has always been a country with a strong work ethic. If anything, starting from this year, China will be working harder than ever to regain its place under the sun.
I very strongly suggest that you read your history and check your facts before making such claims. You are sailing in very dangerous waters and have already broken rules since you have returned from being banned. The Moderators are not impressed with your posting behaviour since you have returned and unless there is a marked improvement, your future on here will be short.

EDIT: GIVEN THAT I HAVE JUST ISSUED YOU WITH SEVEN WARNINGS, I WILL BE RECOMMENDING TO THE OTHER MODERATORS THAT YOU BE BANNED PERMANENTLY.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Like the current rate of production wasn't enough....
It will probably be used for the production of submarines for export and the own navy.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Article from the ANI discussing the size of the PLAN. It compares the PRC shipbuilding to that of the US from 1941 - 1945 and states that the PRC probably built more ships in 2019 alone that the US did from 1941 - 45. No wonder the article states that the PLAN is now the worlds largest navy.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to witness their training methods and outcomes.
As the USN learned during the Vietnam war, keeping large numbers at sea dilutes the command experience.
Keeping a ship at sea is one thing, fighting that ship in complex threat scenarios is a totally different proposition and requires skilled and experienced staff and instructors.
The PLA-N will become proficient in complex naval warfare but I suggest that will be in a decade or so, not today.
There’s simply not enough experienced senior personnel to man that huge increase in hull numbers.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would love to be a fly on the wall to witness their training methods and outcomes.
As the USN learned during the Vietnam war, keeping large numbers at sea dilutes the command experience.
Keeping a ship at sea is one thing, fighting that ship in complex threat scenarios is a totally different proposition and requires skilled and experienced staff and instructors.
The PLA-N will become proficient in complex naval warfare but I suggest that will be in a decade or so, not today.
There’s simply not enough experienced senior personnel to man that huge increase in hull numbers.
It's also a conscript navy and I believe that the Soviet Navy had problems with their senior rates because they didn't have the experience, length of service or technical knowledge that a senior rate in a western navy would. So the tasks that many western senior rates performed would in the Soviet Navy be performed by officers. Since the PLA structured their forces along similar lines, I think that the same may be true in the PLAN. Perhaps @Feanor can confirm whether or not I am correct in my view of the senior rates of the Soviet Navy.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
It's also a conscript navy and I believe that the Soviet Navy had problems with their senior rates because they didn't have the experience, length of service or technical knowledge that a senior rate in a western navy would. So the tasks that many western senior rates performed would in the Soviet Navy be performed by officers. Since the PLA structured their forces along similar lines, I think that the same may be true in the PLAN. Perhaps @Feanor can confirm whether or not I am correct in my view of the senior rates of the Soviet Navy.
I recall that Soviet Navy conscripts served for 3 years, unlike for Soviet Army, for which conscript service was 2 years. That's probably enough time to learn a navy profession and then serve for a year or two. I hope that @Feanor can shine more light on this.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Article from the ANI discussing the size of the PLAN. It compares the PRC shipbuilding to that of the US from 1941 - 1945 and states that the PRC probably built more ships in 2019 alone that the US did from 1941 - 45. No wonder the article states that the PLAN is now the worlds largest navy.

That seems a little unlikely; the US built more than ten thousand ships in WW2, about evenly spilt between warships and merships. OK, about half the warships were amphibious ships and craft of various sorts, but there were still well over 1,000 combatants built, and that was mostly after 1940. I very much doubt the PRC built anywhere near that number in a single year.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's also a conscript navy and I believe that the Soviet Navy had problems with their senior rates because they didn't have the experience, length of service or technical knowledge that a senior rate in a western navy would. So the tasks that many western senior rates performed would in the Soviet Navy be performed by officers. Since the PLA structured their forces along similar lines, I think that the same may be true in the PLAN. Perhaps @Feanor can confirm whether or not I am correct in my view of the senior rates of the Soviet Navy.
This is true for all branches of the Soviet military. A heavier load was placed on officer billets, and more officers were staffed in proportion to enlisted. With that, it is as SolarWind said, the VMF always had longer service times then the Land Forces. I can't speak for the PLAN.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My understand is PLAN are in transition from conscription toward volunteer for both Navy/Air force. and they also study western doctrine and shift from soviet type structure toward more western type structure.

this explain more on PLAN education
http://www.andrewerickson.com/wp-co...ng-of-PLAN-Personnel_Allen-Clemens_201408.pdf
Cool thanks for that.
This is true for all branches of the Soviet military. A heavier load was placed on officer billets, and more officers were staffed in proportion to enlisted. With that, it is as SolarWind said, the VMF always had longer service times then the Land Forces. I can't speak for the PLAN.
Thanks.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Edited again...

@Ananda @Ahmad
Do you know that our minister of defence is now in Beijing to sign the contract for 12 Type 100 submarines? The 12 SSBNs will be all build at the ESEMKA PT. Solo Manufaktur Kreasi Shipyard in Solo.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Edit in progres

Wait....i just realize its 1 April today....

So they haven't got the flux capacitor physics and engineering sorted yet. Maybe they haven't got access to any dilithium crystals. They cannot be artificially made.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
So they haven't got the flux capacitor physics and engineering sorted yet. Maybe they haven't got access to any dilithium crystals. They cannot be artificially made.
I am sure they will soon reverse engineer the dilithium crystals and then illegally copy them.

May i remind you that china plan to use Dilithium Crystal Full-Conducting Macro Chips (DCFCMC-technology) for a new videogame console to defeat the Japanese PlayStation 5 on the global game market?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
remind you that china plan to use Dilithium Crystal Full-Conducting Macro Chips (DCFCMC-technology) for a new videogame console to defeat the Japanese PlayStation 5 on the global game market?
I really still tought this is April fool from Naval News..:eek: and if it is..then it"s a good one. Haven't touch news from morning. Hectic day in work.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I really still tought this is April fool from Naval News..:eek: and if it is..then it"s a good one. Haven't touch news from morning. Hectic day in work.
I was reading the Navalnews article and then sharing it during my dayshift, so i didn't directly realize its 1 april today and that this is a 100% genuine fakenews article.

But when i was typing the post here i started to think. It's not only weird that the existence of this extreme project was just discovered during the launch, but also the way/style of writing is really un-Navalnews.

H.I Sutton really spent a lot of time, energy and fantasy to write this article and create the illustration and fake-satellite photo.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I expect this is not another 1 april newsarticle.
With such naval projects its not more than logic that surrounding countries are also building or planning their own aircraft carriers or 'aircraft carrying destroyers'.

And it is unlikely that thiswill be China's last aircraft carrier.
 
Top