China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I've previously theorised on the forum that Okinawa would be possible in the future
But in any case, the Miyajima Islands do look very vulnerable, if Japan decides to join the US in a war against China

And the military balance looks like it will shift even further in the Western Pacific.

My base scenario (a Chinese increase in military spending from 1.7% to 2.5%) sees the 30year stock of advanced weapons in China double in the space of 7 years from 2022-2029. Then there would be another 50% increase in the 6 year period from the 2029-2035. There's a whole bunch of assumptions here, but you get the idea

So even if Japan doubles military spending and the US arms up somewhat to 4% of GDP, the military balance will continue to shift sharply in China's favour in the Western Pacific

Just to expand on this, suppose China continues to build every 5 years: 1 Aircraft Carrier, 20 AEGIS-type Destroyers and 20 Frigates

So by 2029, the Chinese fleet would comprise: 4 carriers, 80 AEGIS-type Destroyers and 80 Frigates for example
Now, such a fleet structure looks too heavy in terms of surface warships versus carriers.
So I expect future production would focus more on carriers

---

So today I see reporting on Japan officially doubling military spending to 2% of GDP
If I look at the announced policy and procurement changes, none of these would make much difference to Chinese calculations

The biggest change is counter-strike capabilities against mainland China, but remember that China can field far greater counter-strike capabilities that can cripple the Japanese Home Islands

Plus they intend to pay for this with tax increases, but bear in mind that the tax base is getting smaller as Japan is deindustrialising as it faces greater competition, primarily from factories and research institutes in China.

For example, Japan currently exports roughly half of its total production of automobiles
Call it 5 million vehicles exported per year @ $20K = $100 Billion.

But Japan is so far behind in terms of electric vehicle technology compared to China or Tesla. Plus Chinese factories can produce vehicles at a lower cost than any in Japan. So I expect most of Japan's vehicle exports to disappear in the future. Therefore the domestic Japanese auto industry would halve in size.
 

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
I mean it's not bringing anything that the B-2 wasn't to the table, just that the US will have the numbers to make it actually effective in its role. With the new US budget calling for a large increase in LRASM purchases we'll probably see B-21 squadrons fully kitted out for anti-shipping duties if conflict were to break out. To counter that? Very difficult other than vigilance with AWACs/CAP over active combat areas.

I was thinking it would be easier to use a massive constellation of different satellites to lock and trace where its going then to have missile target it. I have seen videos where satellites had locked and tracked the F-22 while it was up in the air.

Maybe using 50 military satellites to lock on to B-21 for targeting? The more satellites involved the better since it said it can use spoofing, EW and counter measures etc..
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Patch mentions the Burke's VLS only being able to energize 1 cell per 4 for a salvo. So Burke's initial salvo is divided by 4 right off the bat which drops that salvo size from the full 96 to 24. Then they factored in spares and missiles lost in the pre-flight phase to drop it to 16.

The Chinese UVLS operates somewhat different in exhaust formats etc. so I don't know if that divide by 4 applies at all to the 052D. If I recall correctly the UVLS has individual exhausts unlike the Mk41 so that's one hint that the PLA may potentially have access to more for the initial salvo.
Understood. Very interesting.

Despite this, how long does it take for the Burkes to recharge the VLS cells before being able to launch another salvo of 24 missiles?

If the recharging time isn't long enough to be detrimental, then the momentary handicap between the salvos may not affect the overall firepower output of the Burkes in a given time period after all.

For some cases it is because of production lines being shut down; Toaster mentions the SSN-22 Connecticut being disassembled for parts to repair the SSN-23 Jimmy Carter because the companies/yards that produced them have shutdown. But that doesn't fly for the other stuff. VA-class subs are still being built for example.
Is SSN-22 Connecticut being retired? Haven't heard any news about the sub since the drag back to base.

I_Y8_H8 touches upon something similar when he talks about Taiwanese procurement. He says Taiwan's current force structure (thought up in the 1990-2000s) makes perfect sense if they were fighting 2005 PLA. The problem is the PLA has moved so extremely far beyond that level.
Just like in this video:

The late Li Ao (a famous Taiwan-based political commentator), in a Taiwanese defense procurement hearing, proclaimed that Taiwan's military procurement of military weapons and platform compared to China's is like "a tricycle trying to chase after a car", i.e. the longer the chase (in military procurement), the further the distance between the two (in military strength).

And that statement was made all the way back in 2005.

Well, pitting arbitrary aircrafts against each other in BVR fight and/or WVR knife fight is entertaining. But it's not reflective of real life. DCS is well known for having questionable missile kinematics, such that stock AMRAAM is ineffective past ~12 NM, meanwhile the third-party SD-10 from JF-17 module outperforms it by a country mile.
Indeed. I think I might have thought about it too one-sided-ly when I said that sentence back then.

I think that Top Gun: Maverick shares the same trait as DCS and C:MO - Awesome to game/act it out in with knifefights and WVR combat, but we know that in real life situations, an not-so well maintained F-14 certainly isn't going to win against not one, but two Su-57s (unless the Su-57 pilots are a$$h0les).

This leads to a low agency in building out their military as the people are pacifists and non-confrontational at heart, thats why in the border skirmishes India is so loud, but doesn't carry the requisite stick.
The Indian people are FAR from being pacifists and non-confrontational at heart. Neither two are the characteristics that a largely over-nationalistic population would have.

Just about almost every single Indian netizens that I can see are rallying that the Indian military should "whoop the a$$es of those commie ch1nks and liberate Tibet from the EVIL Seeseepee" whenever China-India tension runs high, or whenever border skirmishes between the two occured just like what happened weeks ago.

Same goes for Indian netizens when talking about their lifelong enemy, Pakistan.

Either the US Navy increases in size to match the operating tempo or the number/duration of deployments needs to shrink
I'm seeing that the US is going for the former, but the necessary rapid build up of the USN with introduction of newer warships would not happen for at least a good part of this decade.

Meanwhile, as long as China steadily expand the capacity and pace of her warship construction, then she should have no problem in further securing the superiority of PLAN in and around the FIC.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Understood. Very interesting.

Despite this, how long does it take for the Burkes to recharge the VLS cells before being able to launch another salvo of 24 missiles?

If the recharging time isn't long enough to be detrimental, then the momentary handicap between the salvos may not affect the overall firepower output of the Burkes in a given time period after all.


Is SSN-22 Connecticut being retired? Haven't heard any news about the sub since the drag back to base.


Just like in this video:

The late Li Ao (a famous Taiwan-based political commentator), in a Taiwanese defense procurement hearing, proclaimed that Taiwan's military procurement of military weapons and platform compared to China's is like "a tricycle trying to chase after a car", i.e. the longer the chase (in military procurement), the further the distance between the two (in military strength).

And that statement was made all the way back in 2005.


Indeed. I think I might have thought about it too one-sided-ly when I said that sentence back then.

I think that Top Gun: Maverick shares the same trait as DCS and C:MO - Awesome to game/act it out in with knifefights and WVR combat, but we know that in real life situations, an not-so well maintained F-14 certainly isn't going to win against not one, but two Su-57s (unless the Su-57 pilots are a$$h0les).


The Indian people are FAR from being pacifists and non-confrontational at heart. Neither two are the characteristics that a largely over-nationalistic population would have.

Just about almost every single Indian netizens that I can see are rallying that the Indian military should "whoop the a$$es of those commie ch1nks and liberate Tibet from the Seeseepee" whenever China-India tension runs high, or whenever border skirmishes between the two occured just like what happened weeks ago.

Same goes for when Indian netizens are talking about their lifelong enemy, Pakistan.


I'm seeing that the US is going for the former, but the necessary rapid build up of the USN with introduction of newer warships would not happen for at least a good part of this decade.

Meanwhile, as long as China steadily expand the capacity and pace of her warship construction, then she should have no problem in further securing the superiority of PLAN in and around the FIC.

That's called being a loudmouth. A lot of internet tough guys are fairly meek in real life.
 

Jj888

New Member
Registered Member
I was thinking it would be easier to use a massive constellation of different satellites to lock and trace where its going then to have missile target it. I have seen videos where satellites had locked and tracked the F-22 while it was up in the air.

Maybe using 50 military satellites to lock on to B-21 for targeting? The more satellites involved the better since it said it can use spoofing, EW and counter measures etc..
My opinion of these expensive billion dollar heavy sub sonic bombers are out dated.

modern detection systems will watch the skys closely. If the bomber successfully reached its target & released its load, it won’t have enough speed to go home safely against gen 4 & gen 5 fighters & defence systems.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Weren't patch saying that the LRASM isn't all that impressive? Or maybe rather, that it was at the end of the day, just a temporary weapon, since their actual focus was on its succesor (LRASM 2?) or something like that?
What is the expected stats of LRASM 2? More stealthy? 1000+ kilometer range? Supersonic?

I hope newer/WIP standoff missiles like the HN-2000 can play as a much stronger counterpart to the LRASM 2...

it's temporary, but the US is going to have a few thousand of them sitting around by the time the replacement is available in numbers. They really aren't all that bad based on the stats on paper. Can't really overstate the value of a long ranged stealthy sea skimming anti-ship missile, which is now able to be safely (as far as we know) carried into firing range from stealth bombers.
Patch did mention that it is more than just a stealth bomber and will be useful in a lot of useful roles like reconnaissance, EW, etc s and doing it on budget too. It is pretty much agreed upon that it will be a headache for China to deal with. Bltizo suggested that H-20 will be similar in concept.
Indeed, based on what has been publically revealed about the B-21 so far, and I fully agree with Patch on this one.

I think that the introduction of the B-21 cannot be considered as revolutionary in similar sense as the introduction of the gatling gun onto the battlefield in 1862, which completely transformed the dynamic of infantry warfare as single infantry can shoot at multiple enemy troops in short period of time as opposed to one-shot-before-reload.

However, the B-21 can be considered revolutionary in similar sense as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnought in 2003, whereby how battleships were armed has been transformed from having smaller number of guns with many gun calibers per ship to having larger number of guns with just 2 or 3 gun calibers per ship.

B-21 is far from being just a 白菜化 version of the B-2. Based on what is being announced by the USAF, the B-21 is going to be a multirole aircraft - In a sense where brand-new, next-gen concepts like sensor fusion, data networking, integrated command chain, greater utilization of AI, etc would be put into practice.

I damn well hope China is already working hard to properly emulate and enhance similar concepts across the who PLA, plus formulate effective methods to counter them.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Just recalled one of the topics that was briefly discussed by Patch during the live stream which didn't receive much attention - Unmanned surfaced vessels (USV).

As far as I could remember, Patch mentioned that unlike UAVs, UGVs and UUVs which are unmanned platforms, USVs would be minimally manned (i.e. manned with a minimum/skeleton crew) for roles such as basic upkeep, navigation in tight spaces, damage control etc. USVs would essentially play the role of smaller arsenal ships.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In fact, I have written about the USV (and why the PLAN should procure them) in the Chinese USV Development Thread several months ago, as per below.
Just today, the US Navy awarded study and design contracts to 6 companies for developing a Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV).
View attachment 94529
By observing the concept photo, I believe that this concept LUSV would have 32 VLS cells and at least 5 machine guns onboard. The communication system onboard the LUSV seems pretty simplistic, as well for the design of the hull itself, as this project is meant to be based on commercial shipping vessel hulls(?) Displacement is projected to be around 1000-2000 tons, and 61-92 meters in length.

Quoting from the USNI News from last year on said project:


In post #41 in this thread, China has started the construction of a UCSV technology demonstrator in early June.
View attachment 94531

Comparing the specs of both UCSVs, I believe that:

1. China's UCSV would be more viable for patrolling the littorial waters of China and in the near seas, i.e. within the First Island Chain. China's USV can serve as both ASW units, and/or picket duty located on the outer edges of the Nine Dash Line and or in the general direction facing the Ryukyu Islands, Japan and South Korea.

2. The US' LUSV would be capable for both littorial and high seas operations. In hindsight, the LUSV is projected to have similar number of VLS cells to a typical frigate. Of course, the machine guns on LUSV can only be used for close range self-defense against enemy speedboats or pirate sampans, but operating under proper cover of larger allied warships would make her a potent force multiplier.

My idea is this - China should pursue a full-fledged Future Unmanned Combat Surface Vessel (FUCSV) design for the PLAN.

Projected stats as below.
Displacement: Slightly lower than 054A, i.e. 2500-3500 tons
Size: Slightly smaller than 054A, i.e. 110-120 meters long and 13-15 meters
Speed: Similar to 054A, i.e. 28-30 knots
Endurance: Similar to 054A, i.e. 4000 nautical miles
Crew: Minimal
Armament: Up to 48 UVLS, torpedoes, plus 1 or 2 anti-air defense weapon

The control and operation of the weapon systems onboard FUCSV should have the capability to switch between single drone mothership (such as further R&D of the military version Zhu Hai Yun) and individual 054As, 052Ds and 055s, depending on situational and operational requirements. Therefore, crew number onboard the FUCSV can be reduced to a minimum (preferably around 40-50, half of Mogami's 90), as they are only responsible for the daily upkeep, underway maintenance, wartime damage control, and handling basic operations of the vessel during emergency situations.

Each 054A, 052D and 055 can control and operate 1 or 2 FUCSVs, whenever they are not being controlled by the drone motherships, thus acting like a "wing-ship" of sorts to the major surface combatants.

The UVLS onboard the FUCSV can carry a wide variety of AAM, AShM and ASW missiles like those on the larger surface combatants. By increasing the number of UVLS that any particular task force or strike group can employ on the battlefield, they are very potent force multipliers. For self-defense, the FUCSVs can employ either one or two HQ-10s and/or Type 730 CIWS. Torpedoes onboard too can be employed for during ASW operations.

Slightly deviating off topic here, but I understand that arsenal ship concepts are very intriguing and can perform the same roles as these FUCSVs on a much larger scale. However:

1. Losing one ship carrying 48 VLS has much less negative effect on the firepower of the task force or task group than losing one ship carrying 200-300 VLS;
2. Building FUCSVs also consumes much less energy, material, time and complexity than arsenal ships;
3. The FUCSVs can be mass-produced;
4. More shipyards can handle the contruction of the FCUSVs, including those with lower technical knowhow, experience and less capable shipbuilding facilities;
5. Versatile, since larger numbers meant that they could be allocated and moved around theaters and battlefields much easier; and
6. Easier upkeep, repair and maintenance.

In effect, FUCSVs are mini arsenal ships.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
What is the expected stats of LRASM 2? More stealthy? 1000+ kilometer range? Supersonic?

I hope newer/WIP standoff missiles like the HN-2000 can play as a much stronger counterpart to the LRASM 2...



Indeed, based on what has been publically revealed about the B-21 so far, and I fully agree with Patch on this one.

I think that the introduction of the B-21 cannot be considered as revolutionary in similar sense as the introduction of the gatling gun onto the battlefield in 1862, which completely transformed the dynamic of infantry warfare as single infantry can shoot at multiple enemy troops in short period of time as opposed to one-shot-before-reload.

However, the B-21 can be considered revolutionary in similar sense as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnought in 2003, whereby how battleships were armed has been transformed from having smaller number of guns with many gun calibers per ship to having larger number of guns with just 2 or 3 gun calibers per ship.

B-21 is far from being just a 白菜化 version of the B-2. Based on what is being announced by the USAF, the B-21 is going to be a multirole aircraft - In a sense where brand-new, next-gen concepts like sensor fusion, data networking, integrated command chain, greater utilization of AI, etc would be put into practice.

I damn well hope China is already working hard to properly emulate and enhance similar concepts across the who PLA, plus formulate effective methods to counter them.
It's not lrasm 2. I can't remember the actual destination off the top of my head now, but us military is also moving in the hypersonic direction if I remember correctly. China needs to get it's hypersonic air defense ready if it wants to be able to deal with us military attacks.

Lrasm is a nice platform but as soon as it's detected, it's not that hard to get shot down. As long as china has its isr assets in place, dealing with lrasm shouldn't be too difficult imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top