When do u think PLAN will have an aircraft carrier?

[doggychow14]

She does not have a blue water capability, she does not have a multiple intercontinental capability - and most importantly- she doesn't have sea control or logistics strength either.

It seems China is addressing all these problems

 

[Superbug]

demonstrate to me that you actually understand the mechanics of why neutron bombs and nukes on a carrier strike force won't work - and then I'll take you more seriously. demonstrate to me why China isn't able to project force for at least 4 years and then I'll accept that you understand the reality of her force disposition - if you don't, then Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui certainly do.

I don't recall mention of nuclear strike on CSF in that book. Hope you don't mix ballastic missle with nuclear missles in my previous post. It makes no sense to attack a CSF with nuke, A CSF without fighters is no better than a sitting duck.

 

[gf0012-aust]

demonstrate to me that you actually understand the mechanics of why neutron bombs and nukes on a carrier strike force won't work - and then I'll take you more seriously. demonstrate to me why China isn't able to project force for at least 4 years and then I'll accept that you understand the reality of her force disposition - if you don't, then Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui certainly do.

I don't recall mention of nuclear strike on CSF in that book. Hope you don't mix ballastic missle with nuclear missles in my previous post. It makes no sense to attack a CSF with nuke, A CSF without fighters is no better than a sitting duck.

err no, it's not in the book, it was with reference to some of the postulants submitted previously.

a properly battle managed CSF without it's combat air wing is not a sitting duck. thats why my comment about understanding the systems that are in place on a CSF at a war footing. CAP is only one layer of the onion in Carrier protection. It's not like the Falklands where the loss of a combat air wing is a show stopper.

More to the point - and back on topic - Cghina is approx 4-5 years out from being able to deploy a carrier if construction was started today. She doesn't have the force mix (and she only has 2 x 52c's in total with none on the slipways - there are 2 52 series hulls being built, but not enough superstructure has formed up to show what they are). A typical Euro style CSF will need 5-6 escorts. Going off PLAN comments the intent is to build on the US CSF model, ie , AWC. 2 x AWD, 2 x DDG, AOR, 2 x SSK(N). To build that CSF would take away the balance of Chinas skimmers. In five year time she still won't have the capability as not enough vessels are on the slipways. Then they have to be fitted out (another 12 months depending on warfare systems) and then they need to commit to trials - another 9 months. Then they have to work up as a fleet. Another 9-12 months.

It's a slow process and you can't accelerate those stages unless you want to risk performance hits.

 

[Superbug]

a properly battle managed CSF without it's combat air wing is not a sitting duck. thats why my comment about understanding the systems that are in place on a CSF at a war footing. CAP is only one layer of the onion in Carrier protection. It's not like the Falklands where the loss of a combat air wing is a show stopper.

More to the point - and back on topic - Cghina is approx 4-5 years out from being able to deploy a carrier if construction was started today. She doesn't have the force mix (and she only has 2 x 52c's in total with none on the slipways - there are 2 52 series hulls being built, but not enough superstructure has formed up to show what they are). A typical Euro style CSF will need 5-6 escorts. Going off PLAN comments the intent is to build on the US CSF model, ie , AWC. 2 x AWD, 2 x DDG, AOR, 2 x SSK(N). To build that CSF would take away the balance of Chinas skimmers. In five year time she still won't have the capability as not enough vessels are on the slipways. Then they have to be fitted out (another 12 months depending on warfare systems) and then they need to commit to trials - another 9 months. Then they have to work up as a fleet. Another 9-12 months.

It's a slow process and you can't accelerate those stages unless you want to risk performance hits.

Let's make one thing clear, I wholeheartly agree with your on the chinese CSF assessment, that's why I don't believe China should be pursuiting a CSF. Let's stop talking about outfitting a CSF for china. A cluster of US CSF will cripple a Chinese CSF in high sea in no time.

On the other hand, do you think China stands a chance of fending off or crippling US CSF's in chinese sea with its land based military apparatus?

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the other hand, do you think China stands a chance of fending off or crippling US CSF's in chinese sea with its land based military apparatus?

I don't think China has the right force mix to contest a group of US CSF's. At best I think that she might be able to take out 15% of a fleet group - the systems AEGIS/ForceNET mean that the USN group of 7 carriers and escorts is able to deal with 35,000 concurrent threats. If those groups are at a war footing, then the fleet mix and thus the concurrency rate goes up.

That leaves China with few options, total war, saturated war within 2 weeks, or concurrent conflicts where US CSF's would be delayed on station.

Edit: Dyslexia fix

 

[turin]

don't think China has the right force mix to contest a group of US CSF's. At best I think that she might be able to take out 15% of a fleet group - the systems AEGIS/FORCENET mean that the USN group of 7 carriers and escorts is able to deal with 35,000 concurrent threats. If those groups are at a war footing, then the fleet mix and thus the concurrency rate goes up.

Another thought from me, that might fit in here: On another forum the very same discussion is in progress and over there one argument against Aegis-fleet air defense is that while quite a number of incoming SS-N's can be detected only a small number can be dealt with at the same time. This is due to the necessity of the AN/SPG-62 Illuminator units for missile guidance. However the illuminators are supposed of being able to handle only a small amount of detected threats at the same time, between 8 and 10. Yeah, I know: it includes a lot of "supposed" and "heard" but most of that info comes from an reserve officer who witnessed quite some exercises himself and he seems to be a rather reliable source.
So, any comments on that illuminator problem?

 

[highsea]

I don't know what the specific limits of the FCR are, but an AB class DDG has (3) AN/SPG-62 FCR's, and a Tico has one each AN/SPY-1, AN/SPQ-9a, and AN/SPG-62. The ships in the CSF are NetFORCE'd, so they are sharing data and presubably tracking and targeting tasks. So you have 2-3 AB's and 1-2 Tico's minimum, and if there is another CSF within the NetFORCE range, double that. On a wartime footing, they will not be operating alone. Add to that the other ships in the force, aircraft, etc, and consider that the attackers are themselves under attack, as well as their bases.

My thoughts are that the biggest threat to a CVN would come from an SSK operating either alone or in pairs, trying to sneak inside the screen using dash and drift tactics. Try to get in front of the CBG and then just lurk and wait for it to come in range. I don't know if they could actually sink one, but they might be able to disable it before being discovered (if they were reeaallly sneaky).