Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS said:

What sort of MLU do you expect a Type-54 or Type-56 to have?

---
Remember the Type-56 only costs $107M.

I see their primary roles as:
1. peacetime presence in the 1st Island Chain
2. wartime ASW/convoy in low-risk areas

So they don't need any significant upgrades in terms of air-defence sensors during an MLU.
They will still be as effective with their current ASW fitout and short -range air defence suite.

---
The Type-54A only costs $200M.

I see their primary roles as:
1. peacetime presence globally
2. wartime ASW/convoy in low-risk or medium-risk areas
3. wartime ASW in high-risk areas, operating in a task group with air defence destroyers.
But the Type-54A will eventually be assigned to low risk areas as newer ASW ships are built.

So again, the Type-54A doesn't need any significant upgrades in terms of air-defence sensors during an MLU.

Click to expand...

I am not really sure that is how they plan to use the ships in wartime.

Also the Type 056/056A typically exercise and operate in packs, like wolf packs. That does not sound like convoy duty. These ships appear more like they are intended to disrupt surface groups approaching littoral waters with pack like tactics. With their ASW capabilities, the 056A might operate in a 'bastion' strategy similar to Soviet Cold era frigates, that will be used to clear approaches of enemy submarines while protecting their own, particularly the Type 94s.

Also where do you get those figures? The export offer for the Type 054A to Thailand was at least $330 million.

I don't understand this low risk area thing. A ship assigned to a low risk area is to hide from the enemy and is useless. There is no such things as low risk areas in modern warfare with today's sensors and weapons reach.

But there is such a thing as low-risk and medium-risk waters in the Western Pacific.

Click to expand...

Tam said:

No there isn't.

Click to expand...

This is really fundamental.

You are saying that all the waters in the Western Pacific are high-risk for Chinese ships.
And that the Chinese Navy has no low-risk areas.

But look at the Bohai Sea.
It's a shallow enclosed sea surrounded by Chinese territory.

It's also commonly accepted that China could achieve air superiority over Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait.

By extension, China should be able to achieve air superiority over the coastal waters next to mainland China.

Tam said:

I am not really sure that is how they plan to use the ships in wartime.

Click to expand...

This is crucial.

If you're not really sure about how they plan to use the Type-56 Corvette or Type-54A Frigate in wartime, how can you have an opinion of what those ships should look like?

It means that you're arguing for more weapons, sensors, capability and cost - without understanding why you need them in the first place.

Remember, the REQUIREMENT comes first, then the ships are built to meet those requirements.

AndrewS said:

What you've said is incorrect.

A helicopter can only carry a small dipping sonar or sonobuoys.
These simply do not generate enough data to require much analysis.
So signal processing and analysis can be done on small computers anyway.

Click to expand...

If you are dipping passively, yeah, you do. There are UUVs with even smaller sonars and they manage to collect even more data.

I am not sure if enough signal processing and analysis can be done with laptop sized computers on board a helicopter.

And if you needed offboard signal processing (from helicopter to ship), you're presumably looking at a hefty datalink and staying within line-of-sight of the mothership.

Click to expand...

Exactly why I think this is being done.

Presumably it would be cheaper just to move the dipping sonar or drop a few more sonobuoys.

Click to expand...

How does that solve the identification problem?

---

So what if a submarine can move at 30knots?

It only moves 1km per minute. You can afford a 30 second delay due to radio comms between helicopter and ship, because the submarine only moves 500m in that time.

Click to expand...

If the submarine is diving at that time, they can already escape. Even if the submarine is a bit noisy at higher speeds, you can attempt to hide the noise by diving into the thermocline which can block the noise.

That why I say ASW-related CEC is a nice to have, rather than critical.

Click to expand...

I think its great to have packs of ASW vessels join their information to create one giant sensor net, so one ASW vessel can see literally all what the entire pack can see. This is in addition to not just vessels but helicopters.

This also works in creating an air defense net among the ships, and at the same time, the helicopter can be used as a spotter for targeting enemy ships with antiship missiles.

AndrewS said:

This is really fundamental.

You are saying that all the waters in the Western Pacific are high-risk for Chinese ships.
And that the Chinese Navy has no low-risk areas.

But look at the Bohai Sea.
It's a shallow enclosed sea surrounded by Chinese territory.

It's also commonly accepted that China could achieve air superiority over Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait.

By extension, China should be able to achieve air superiority over the coastal waters next to mainland China.

Click to expand...

So you think its strategic to hide your ships there? The Chinese cities, centers of industry and technology are not hiding in the Bohai Sea. Putting ships in the Bohai Sea does not protect those cities.

Air superiority does not guarantee stopping enemy planes and ships throwing long range LRASM and Tomahawks at your ships and ports whose ranges can be at least 700km and over.

In order to defend the Chinese mainland, you would have to extend the buffer zone beyond the range of cruise missiles and take the fight to the other side before these can be launched.

You tell me exactly how a Type 054A can defend itself against an LRASM without a tech upgrade to enable the 054A to detect the missile earlier and prevent the 054A's own emissions from being targeted by other ships and planes.

Tam said:

The CCP can always stretch the budget of the PLAN to whatever they want or to do what is needed. This ain't a democracy as it is a meritocracy and a technocracy combined.

Click to expand...

True, but in 2011, the Chinese economy was only half the size and was still a low-income country.

China only just became middle-income last year.

And the strategic environment was so much more secure, so why not continue with a modest level of military spending, and focus on internal development instead?

But since the breakdown of US-China relations, I think we are going to see a sustained increase in Chinese military spending in the future.

AndrewS said:

This is crucial.

If you're not really sure about how they plan to use the Type-56 Corvette or Type-54A Frigate in wartime, how can you have an opinion of what those ships should look like?

It means that you're arguing for more weapons, sensors, capability and cost - without understanding why you need them in the first place.

Remember, the REQUIREMENT comes first, then the ships are built to meet those requirements.

Click to expand...

Actually I know why I need better sensors and EW capability. Everything will be all about spectrum dominance, and if its not EW, its about stealth. You cannot fight if you cannot see. Even in the US, they argue heavily for the SPY-6 as a major must for maintaining their dominance.

The question is how the Type 056 and the 054A fit in a 2030 modern warfighting. These ships are based in concepts and technologies evolved from the Cold War. Due to their older style radars, which may require them to operate on EMCON, their ability to target enemy ships would have to depend on CEC or beamformed focused datalink. Their ability to detect incoming threats to their existence would heavily depend on CEC.

AndrewS said:

True, but in 2011, the Chinese economy was only half the size and was still a low-income country.

China only just became middle-income last year.

And the strategic environment was so much more secure, so why not continue with a modest level of military spending, and focus on internal development instead?

But since the breakdown of US-China relations, I think we are going to see a sustained increase in Chinese military spending in the future.

Click to expand...

The Soviets managed to create that massive Cold War fleet of theirs with a GDP no bigger than Mexico or Spain. Or less than the GDP of the Guandong megacity. If there is a will, there is always a way. I wonder why you connect ship construction with GDP.

Tam said:

So you think its strategic to hide your ships there? The Chinese cities, centers of industry and technology are not hiding in the Bohai Sea. Putting ships in the Bohai Sea does not protect those cities.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about hiding Chinese ships?

Chinese ships will be hugging the Coast, but working as normal.
Chinese cities on the Coast will be working as normal.

They will be next to each other, with AWACs, fighter CAP and land-based SAMs protecting both.

Air superiority does not guarantee stopping enemy planes and ships throwing long range LRASM and Tomahawks at your ships and ports whose ranges can be at least 700km and over.

Click to expand...

True.

But remember that China can throw launch missiles right back at ships and ports.
And that China is a broadly self-sufficient continental-sized land nation, whereas its potential targets are small islands which are close to China, and which cannot survive without seaborne imports. Even Japan qualifies as a *small* island.

In order to defend the Chinese mainland, you would have to extend the buffer zone beyond the range of cruise missiles and take the fight to the other side before these can be launched.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is now a question of projecting power and obtaining air/maritime superiority further out.
This is where the operating environment becomes high-risk for planes and ships.

You tell me exactly how a Type 054A can defend itself against an LRASM without a tech upgrade to enable the 054A to detect the missile earlier and prevent the 054A's own emissions from being targeted by other ships and planes.

Click to expand...

If a Type-54 can detect a slow LRASM at the radar horizon, it can get at least 4 full engagement rounds with its medium-range SAMs.

If there is a pk of 70%

2 engagement rounds = 9% of the original missiles left
3 engagements = 3% of missiles left.
4 engagements = 1% of missiles left.

Then there is the short-range SAMs and point defence.

--

If the Type-54A is operating in a low-risk area, it either:
1. Doesn't need to operate its radars
2. Doesn't have to worry about its radars being detected by other ships or planes, because it is deep within 400km defence bubble from AWACs, SAMs, fighters.

If the Type-54A is operating in a high-risk area, it:
1. Simply doesn't operate its radars, and relies on AWACs or Air Defence destroyers.
2. And by the time a Type-54A needs to use its medium-range SAMs and radars, presumably it won't matter because the AEGIS destroyers are already in full air defence mode with their radars.

Tam said:

The Soviets managed to create that massive Cold War fleet of theirs with a GDP no bigger than Mexico or Spain. Or less than the GDP of the Guandong megacity. If there is a will, there is always a way. I wonder why you connect ship construction with GDP.

Click to expand...

At its peak, the Soviet economy was roughly half the size of the USA. That's a lot bigger than your comparisons with Mexico, Spain or Guangdong.

Soviet military spending was also UNSUSTAINABLE, and was a big reason why their economy and political system collapsed.

At a strategic level, the size of your economy DOES determine how big a military you can build and maintain.