Ask anything Thread

[lcloo]

@nimitz123

I believe that there might be another or two in the works though (building or fitting out), so it's not like there won't come more online in the future.

Type 901's main role is to supply aircraft carrier group, or a large flotilla of similar size. IMO they will build at least one type 901 for every aircraft carrier. Therefore, we can expect a new type 901 for 003 PLANS Fujian ( check Chinese wikipedia - TB confirm).

Currently PLAN has around 17-18 replenishment ships (vs 31 ships in USN), which means they can sent out at least 10 expedition groups (each supported by a replenishment ship) within a week's notice. Also they do not stationed their replenishment ships in far away region like US navy since PLAN is not doing world police job like US. The availability rates of PLAN ships in ports should be quite high.

The US navy's need for large number of replenishment ships is that they are policing the sea globally, while PLAN's main concern is to deter US Navy's encroachment and containment in seas around China. Thus China's need for replenishment ships is far different from US.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I have asked myself this same question previously.
The US navy has a battle force of 4.5 million tons of warships. 1/3 of this or 1.5 million tons are logistics replenishment ships.

If China wants to "become" like the USA it would need to build 3 Type 901 replenishment ships every year for the next 9 years. Obviously this is not going to happen. However this is not to say China does not have great ambitions. China is literally building warships at double the rate compared to the USA. 160,000 tons to 80,000 tons per year. By 2032 the PLA navy will become the largest navy in the world, end of discussion. However its composition will be very different from the US navy.

Within the next 10 years:
PLA navy - superior number of surface combatants and amphibious ships
US navy - superior number of aircraft carriers and replenishment ships

Beyond the next 10 years:
That's a separate conversation.

Hmm the USN and PLAN have entirely different mission profile and strategic goals.
First off the USN is a globe trotting force with tons of overseas deployments.
The PLAN while formidable in terms of firepower is still largely a brown water navy but with blue water capabilities.
Even with 3 carriers I don't see them operate outside the 2nd island chain regularly . They may operate in the mideast occasionally but certainly not enough to justify 1/4 nevermind 1/3 of their entire tonnage in replenishment ships.

 

[banjex]

still largely a brown water navy

What!

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

Hmm the USN and PLAN have entirely different mission profile and strategic goals.
First off the USN is a globe trotting force with tons of overseas deployments.
The PLAN while formidable in terms of firepower is still largely a brown water navy but with blue water capabilities.
Even with 3 carriers I don't see them operate outside the 2nd island chain regularly . They may operate in the mideast occasionally but certainly not enough to justify 1/4 nevermind 1/3 of their entire tonnage in replenishment ships.

Bluntly speaking, what the f**k? A brown water navy consists of ships that can only perform naval operations in the river or near the coast all shore. One can argue that the PLAN is a hybrid between green water and blue water navies, but it certainly isn't a brown water navy with some blue water capabilities.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I have asked myself this same question previously.
The US navy has a battle force of 4.5 million tons of warships. 1/3 of this or 1.5 million tons are logistics replenishment ships.

If China wants to "become" like the USA it would need to build 3 Type 901 replenishment ships every year for the next 9 years. Obviously this is not going to happen. However this is not to say China does not have great ambitions. China is literally building warships at double the rate compared to the USA. 160,000 tons to 80,000 tons per year. By 2032 the PLA navy will become the largest navy in the world, end of discussion. However its composition will be very different from the US navy.

Within the next 10 years:
PLA navy - superior number of surface combatants and amphibious ships
US navy - superior number of aircraft carriers and replenishment ships

Beyond the next 10 years:
That's a separate conversation.

I think that surface combatants + amphibs is a pretty good combo of long range AAW, ASW and early warning, especially once 076 are launched with their catapult and networked armed USVs are more mature. Carriers and SSKs would then be more defensive while USVs, drones and missiles are the strike power.

 

[nimitz123]

Does China have at-sea vertical launch system weapons reload capability? And if not, is there any evidences show that that capability is under development?

 

[lcloo]

Does China have at-sea vertical launch system weapons reload capability? And if not, is there any evidences show that that capability is under development?

No, and no. (USN - No and Yes*)

Why not? Because the normal operational area of PLAN (distance from home ports) is very different from US Navy. China can easily provide air cover and navy surface and underwater protections for PLAN ships returning to base for replenishment.

*
WASHINGTON — In early October, the U.S. Navy reloaded a destroyer’s missile tubes using a crane on an auxiliary ship pulled alongside the destroyer, rather than a crane on an established pier.

Reloading a vertical launching system, or VLS, is a challenging maneuver, given the crane must hold missile canisters vertically, while slowly lowering the explosives into the system’s small opening in the ship deck.

It’s also a maneuver the Navy cannot yet do at sea. This demonstration took place while the destroyer Spruance was tied to the pier at Naval Air Station North Island, as a first step in creating a more expeditionary rearming capability.

But in the near future, that same evolution between a warship and an auxiliary vessel could take place in any harbor or protected waters around the globe. One day, it may even take place in the open ocean, thanks to research and development efforts in support of a top priority for the secretary of the Navy.

 

[charles18]

I see two pathways the PLA-navy can evolve for the foreseeable future, between now and the next 15 years.
option 1: develop global power projection capabilities
option 2: project power up to the 3rd island chain

Option 1, would favor investing heavily into nuclear propulsion. There would be more nuclear powered warships like carriers and submarines being built. Diplomatic relations with distant foreign nations would have to be established for the creation of over seas naval bases, especially on other continents. A lot more at sea replenishment ships would need to be built.

Option 2, would favor investing in diesel power over nuclear propulsion. The 3rd island chain is at most 8,000km from mainland China. Diesel powered warships are capable of coving this distance and they are cheaper to build than nuclear therefore more can be built with the same budget. Long distant oversea military bases would be less important. Fewer at sea replenishment ships would need to be built.

Question: is there any indication as to which path the PLA-navy is choosing or are they being completely silent on this issue?

 

[PapaOsama]

Hypothetically speaking, counldn't the PLAN integrate DIRCM onto its ships to help deal with the LRASM, which has an IIR seeker?

 

[davidau]

Hmm the USN and PLAN have entirely different mission profile and strategic goals.
First off the USN is a globe trotting force with tons of overseas deployments.
The PLAN while formidable in terms of firepower is still largely a brown water navy but with blue water capabilities.
Even with 3 carriers I don't see them operate outside the 2nd island chain regularly . They may operate in the mideast occasionally but certainly not enough to justify 1/4 nevermind 1/3 of their entire tonnage in replenishment ships.

what! hope you are not colour blind!