Very plausible. Soviets had that kind of approach i think
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Very plausible. Soviets had that kind of approach i think
Intrepid
Major
Yes. But why should a Nimitz Super aircraft carrier face such a force? He'll pull back and wait for reinforcements to come.
Never go into a fight that you don't know you will win.
Well, I doubt the carrier would even get in range. Also there are a couple of problems with this. The Type 054 is marine diesel engine powered so I doubt it would be able to keep up with the carrier at full speed. You would be better off with Type 055 and 052Ds I think.
Also the Chinese Navy still has somewhat inconsistent ASW capabilities across its ships. Only more modern ships have adequate sonar and towed variable depth sonar. Anti-submarine helicopters are also lagging in actual numbers. Plus most PLAN helicopters are Z-9s not Z-20s and these might not even have ASW capability built-in.
But yes I agree that in modern ship vs ship engagements you are likely better off without any carriers at all. This isn't WW2 where you needed airplanes to spot ships, you can easily spot them with satellites and hit them from beyond the visual range with missiles. Even if you required spotting capabilities it isn't anything you can't do with a simple drone, carrier is overkill except for bullying nations with lower tier militaries. A supercarrier air wing has more aircraft than most air forces in the world.
In the long term I think the PLAN needs to replace the Type 054 with a frigate which has at least a single turbine engine to provide it higher peak top speed to engage faster ships like carriers. Not to mention using the standard VLS and integrated mast radar, VDS, etc.
Last edited:
This is an extremely lopsided scenario against the surface fleet. Without proper air-support and the ability to identify and target the opponent, they are toast. And this axiom has been true since WWII.
The exact same thing btw would happen if you had a 003 battle group with a 09V attached coming against a flotilla of LCS and Burke combatants. People tend to overestimate real world CEC capabilities, to the point where they theorize based on Wikipedia based max weapon ranges. This is not how this works.
In the modern world, Ships can identify targets with drones, satellites. So, assuming that is the case, how likely is a victory for surface ship fleet vs a carrier group? Also assume that this is a full-frontal attack of both sides, thus there is no option of going away using superior speed as some mentioned.
How good is a surface ship air defense if there is grid like pattern of a large number ships. The biggest weakness for ships it seems to be is the line of sight range of radars. So, planes can fly low to avoid detection until around 17 miles. But if there is a grid of ships, can they prevent such low flying tactics from working? Can planes avoid a SAM missile barrage from ships?
A) Who knows?
B) Judging by some available circumstantial evidence, I'd say they're where US subs were anywhere from late 1980s to late 1990s.
Reasoning for that assessment:
Subs' noise is derived from the following (not an exhaustive list):
1. Size. The bigger the hull is, the more room there is for noise insulation. - 093 seems quite close in hull diameter to LA class, when both are measured via GE earth. Certainly, 093 is visibly wider than French Rubis class from the 1980s, for example.
2. Number and design of shafts and propellers. Single shaft and single propeller makes least noise. And skewback design of prop again makes that noise even lower. LA class (and earlies classes even) had that. Russian subs, for example started featuring those only in1980s. We have seen official models of chinese made export conventional subs with skewback props, so it's likely 093 uses the design too. After all, since the cold war ended, the design was no longer held a secret, so the general shape is now known.
3. Precisely and finely made machinery. The more finely made it is, the nicer all the clogs and parts work together, making less noise. Computer controlled designed and milling machines helped there immensely, and that is one area China is quite good at. I find it unlikely that 093 would have worse tolerances than a LA class design made in 1980s.
4. Natural circulation for part of the reactor work envelope. Some older subs, including LA class, used pumps throughout all their working envelope too cool their reactors. There have been news of teams in China getting award for natural circulation around reactors for new submarines, and that was years ago. If true, this would be another area where latest 093 are ahead of improved LA class.
So, all in all, I find it unlikely that newest 093 (ones commissioned in the last 5 or so years) are not at least as quiet as improved LA class. And it's quite plausible they're somewhat quieter, given the various advances mentioned here. Simply said, the earlier 093 subs and these newest one should be two different classes, really.
B) Judging by some available circumstantial evidence, I'd say they're where US subs were anywhere from late 1980s to late 1990s.
Reasoning for that assessment:
Subs' noise is derived from the following (not an exhaustive list):
1. Size. The bigger the hull is, the more room there is for noise insulation. - 093 seems quite close in hull diameter to LA class, when both are measured via GE earth. Certainly, 093 is visibly wider than French Rubis class from the 1980s, for example.
2. Number and design of shafts and propellers. Single shaft and single propeller makes least noise. And skewback design of prop again makes that noise even lower. LA class (and earlies classes even) had that. Russian subs, for example started featuring those only in1980s. We have seen official models of chinese made export conventional subs with skewback props, so it's likely 093 uses the design too. After all, since the cold war ended, the design was no longer held a secret, so the general shape is now known.
3. Precisely and finely made machinery. The more finely made it is, the nicer all the clogs and parts work together, making less noise. Computer controlled designed and milling machines helped there immensely, and that is one area China is quite good at. I find it unlikely that 093 would have worse tolerances than a LA class design made in 1980s.
4. Natural circulation for part of the reactor work envelope. Some older subs, including LA class, used pumps throughout all their working envelope too cool their reactors. There have been news of teams in China getting award for natural circulation around reactors for new submarines, and that was years ago. If true, this would be another area where latest 093 are ahead of improved LA class.
So, all in all, I find it unlikely that newest 093 (ones commissioned in the last 5 or so years) are not at least as quiet as improved LA class. And it's quite plausible they're somewhat quieter, given the various advances mentioned here. Simply said, the earlier 093 subs and these newest one should be two different classes, really.
These are synergistic, given that highly precised computer controlled milling machines are needed to mill out the complex subtle curvelinear geometries used in skewback propellers.
Given that Chinese subs as early as the Song class are already using skewbacks, one can expect any sub built after that to have such.
Do you get much flow noise from the free-flooding holes on the boat's sides? I'm looking at the old Type 09I Han class and see some of them with lots of individual open slot whereas others have long partially covered holes. I wondered which is the more 'modern' design and therefore (probably) the cleanest?
Attachments
-
Han - 002 (Type 091).jpg -
Han - 028.jpg