Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
There were some questions on the CSBA paper below, on how a carrier could maintain a UCAV CAP at 800-1000nm (1500-1800km)
It looks like they are basing this on the demonstrated range (3500km+) of the following UCAV prototypes.
Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie
Boeing Loyal Wingman
Northrop Grumman X-47B
So if you add some in-air refuelling, they would have the range to maintain a long-range CAP.
And it's interesting the Kratos target cost is $2M.
---
We also see that China is developing a similar "Dark Sword" UCAV, that could extend China's land-based CAP in the same way.
But look at the geography.
China-Okinawa is 650km
Shanghai-Kyushu is 800km
Shanghai-Osaka is 1400km
Shanghai-Tokyo is 1800km
Guam is further away from China at 3000km, but the midpoint is 1500km.
China's larger number of airbases and presumably UCAVs should ensure air superiority at that distance.
And if UCAVs don't have an endurance limit, and can be refuelled at this distance, the Chinese Air Force could theoretically send in huge numbers of low-cost fighter UCAVs and ground attack UCAVs which could reach Guam and also ships some 3000km away
Implications
It would make the Chinese carrier programme a lot less important, because land-based UCAVs would be able to operate to the 2nd Island Chain.
US (and Chinese) aircraft carriers would also be disadvantaged, because they are expensive platforms with a limited capacity, because there is a shift from a small number of high-performance fighter jets to large swarms of lower-performance UCAVs.
But we'll have to see if this vision plays out.
It looks like they are basing this on the demonstrated range (3500km+) of the following UCAV prototypes.
Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie
Boeing Loyal Wingman
Northrop Grumman X-47B
So if you add some in-air refuelling, they would have the range to maintain a long-range CAP.
And it's interesting the Kratos target cost is $2M.
---
We also see that China is developing a similar "Dark Sword" UCAV, that could extend China's land-based CAP in the same way.
But look at the geography.
China-Okinawa is 650km
Shanghai-Kyushu is 800km
Shanghai-Osaka is 1400km
Shanghai-Tokyo is 1800km
Guam is further away from China at 3000km, but the midpoint is 1500km.
China's larger number of airbases and presumably UCAVs should ensure air superiority at that distance.
And if UCAVs don't have an endurance limit, and can be refuelled at this distance, the Chinese Air Force could theoretically send in huge numbers of low-cost fighter UCAVs and ground attack UCAVs which could reach Guam and also ships some 3000km away
Implications
It would make the Chinese carrier programme a lot less important, because land-based UCAVs would be able to operate to the 2nd Island Chain.
US (and Chinese) aircraft carriers would also be disadvantaged, because they are expensive platforms with a limited capacity, because there is a shift from a small number of high-performance fighter jets to large swarms of lower-performance UCAVs.
But we'll have to see if this vision plays out.
Last edited:
CSBA analysis of deliverable ordnance
Comparison between 4x SAGs versus 1x Carrier. Presumably these have an equivalent cost.
The implication is that Chinese Aircraft Carriers are a suboptimal means for delivering offensive missiles, and that they should focus of air superiority and surveillance.
And that offensive missiles should be carried by surface ships instead.
Comparison between 4x SAGs versus 1x Carrier. Presumably these have an equivalent cost.
Four Surface Action Groups could deliver more weapons compared to a CVW initially and almost as many weapons each day thereafter. Each of these forces cost approximately the same to procure. This chart assumes missile-equipped DDC carry 32 missiles each and are reloaded in a location 1,250 nm away from the operational area. Taking into account a transit speed of 20 kn, an evasion factor of 15 percent, and reload time, it would take a bit over 6 days for a DDC to return from a reload trip. The initial salvo from the four SAGs launches all DDG strike weapons (24 per DDG) and assumes 25 percent of DDG missile cells are devoted to strike weapons. In both the initial salvo and subsequent salvos, the DDCs in each SAG fire 24 missiles and serially rotate off station to reload as their missiles are expended, while DDGs remain on station providing command and control and defense over the SAG. The CVW is composed of 44 strike-fighters, 70 percent of which are operationally available each day; eight fighters are devoted to air defense of the CSG. Strike-fighters fly their combat radius from the carrier and launch standoff strike weapons that travel the remaining distance to their target. Strike aircraft are assumed to use drop tanks and refueling provided by Navy MQ-25 aircraft in the CVW or Air Force tankers.
The implication is that Chinese Aircraft Carriers are a suboptimal means for delivering offensive missiles, and that they should focus of air superiority and surveillance.
And that offensive missiles should be carried by surface ships instead.
The last part is pretty obvious. Assuming carrier with 24 J-15s, and we have seen J-15 take off from carrier with two YJ-83, if all these take off with YJ-83, that would be 48 missiles only. Let's say half of them would take off with YJ-83 and half is escort, that would be 24 missiles. That's only four Type 054A. YJ-83 is a bit outdated too, analogous to Harpoon. Lets say in theory, each of the 24 J-15s would mount a YJ-12 or YJ-62 under the belly, and in consideration for the greater weight of these, each J-15 can only carry one of these. That's just assuming for mental practice; we know they don't and are not equipped for it. The Shenzhen carriers 16 YJ-12s, each of the 052C carries 8 YJ-62, and God knows what a 052D or a 055 can carry as these two ships can be flexible.
In addition to air superiority and surveillance, the other thing the Chinese aircraft carriers can provide is electronic warfare support, if the ships can use J-15Ds. It is not necessary for the J-15s to be armed with YJ-91s or other ARMs, just fuel and jammers. They might achieve a much greater impact on these.
It's certainly not unbelievable; after all the Chinese Navy's UVLS is one of the largest VLS in the world at present and with the use of cold launch will be able to use the full 0.85x0.85m cross section of the VLS and almost all of the full 9m length of its strike variant.
It was also yankeesama that talked about YJ-XX, and we know the slideshow/presentation of PLAN projects from a few years ago also explicitly talked about such a weapon.
The exact performance of such a weapon is a different matter obviously, but I think the technology should be there and the VLS is big enough to accommodate a weapon fitting the parameters of a "ship/UVLS launched ballistic missile/HGV weapon"
From what we can get for now it seems has a range of 1000-1500 km. If we take the optimistic end of estimation, it could potentially have a similar strike range of a carrier.
This could open to an option of a new doctrine where carrier focus on reconnaissance and air superiority while fleet strike mission would be given to large surface combatant equipped with these "super missiles".
Also imagine this missile launched from a SSGN which I believe would be a reasonable next step.
Yes, the CBSA has numerous papers on the optimum blue-water navy doctrine as being
1. aircraft carriers for air superiority and reconnaissance
2. ships/submarines launching heavy antiship and land attack missiles
It's possible, but Type-55 or Type-52D destroyers are a far cheaper missile platform, and would be operating under air cover anyway.
The advantage of an SSGN is that it should be able to close to within 200km of a target undetected.
Then it can launch a much larger numbers of missiles - because each missile is a lot smaller and cheaper.