Future PLAN orbat discussion

AndrewS said:

My view is that today, China would "win" in the 1st Island Chain, but it isn't overmatch yet.



The issue is that all those US actions have a minor effect because the Chinese economy can be largely self-sufficient.
And if the US does go too far, China will impose sanctions on the US, and watch as US weapons production and civilian factories shut down, like we saw in the recent trade war.

So I don't see this as a realistic option.



For expeditionary operations beyond the reach of the Rocket Force and Air Force, I think 3-4 additional Chinese aircraft carriers isn't enough to deter the US.

Click to expand...

Those actions would be extremely detrimental to China.

I made it easy to grasp with that lengthy list of examples. China’s economy as it stands cannot survive off only internal consumption and neither is China autarkic. Do you not understand that China even imports a great deal of rare earths - it’s the midstream processing where it dominates. Why don’t you look up what China imports from the DRC for example, or pause to consider why China established the Belt and Road project?

And you also need to consider the alternative for the US - poverty, civil war, destruction, and suffering (just with a USD collapsing).

GTI said:

Those actions would be extremely detrimental to China.

I made it easy to grasp with that lengthy list of examples. China’s economy as it stands cannot survive off only internal consumption and neither is China autarkic. Do you not understand that China even imports a great deal of rare earths - it’s the midstream processing where it dominates. Why don’t you look up what China imports from the DRC for example, or pause to consider why China established the Belt and Road project?

Click to expand...

In addition to the midstream processing of rare earths, China also dominates the upstream mining and also downstream magnet fabrication.

China mines 70% of all rare earths globally. If there is a disruption to imports, we will see China increase domestic mining.
Chinese factories will probably be fine as rare earth exports will be curtailed.
It is foreign factories (particularly US ones since the US is the one disrupting the supply chains) which will feel the brunt of rare earth shortages.

---

I'm very aware of why the Belt and Road exists, but I struggle to see external dependencies where US actions result in a net win for the US.

The US could undertake a lot of actions detrimental to China, but China has spent the past 8+ years de-risking from external dependencies, whilst making the rest of the world dependent on China. That is the dual-circulation policy.

sunnymaxi said:

civilian industry always interlinked with defense sector. upstream supply chain of components does share many similarities.

Click to expand...

This doesn't refute my two statements. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't address my two statements at all. I am not a mind reader, so if your thinking is that nuclear propulsion enjoys benefits from civilian sector over conventional propulsion, realise that conventional propulsion also enjoys benefits from the civilian sector if not even more so.

AndrewS said:

But if Chinese aircraft carriers are operating to the 3rd Island Chain (say 8000km to Hawaii), China doesn't have local resupply bases.
My guess is that another 2 replenishment ships (of some sort) would be required, along with Frigate escorts.
If we use US costings, these ships should cost in excess of $2 Billion.

But note that the cost for the nuclear reactors on a Ford-class aircraft carrier comes to $2 Billion.

So it is cheaper to spend money upfront on nuclear-power for the aircraft carrier, rather than 4 additional ships.

Click to expand...

Nuclear propulsion is not a replacement for replenishment ships. That is what you are advocating here: replacement, rather than reduction. A replenishment ship's purpose is not just to store the conventional carrier's fuel. There is no way around attritution of distance short of adding more replenishment ships. It's like moving house — you can do it all by yourself, or find/hire a bunch of people to do it more effectively.

AndrewS said:

In addition, the nuclear-power option has significantly better ongoing operating costs.

Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let actually see some supporting evidence for this. Historically, nuclear propulsion has always been more expensive than conventional option. According to GAO's report, the average annual life-cycle cost in 1997 is $282 millions for CV vs. $444 millions for CVN.

Engineer said:

Nuclear propulsion is not a replacement for replenishment ships. That is what you are advocating here: replacement, rather than reduction. A replenishment ship's purpose is not just to store the conventional carrier's fuel. There is no way around attritution of distance short of adding more replenishment ships. It's like moving house — you can do it all by yourself, or find/hire a bunch of people to do it more effectively.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let actually see some supporting evidence for this. Historically, nuclear propulsion has always been more expensive than conventional option. According to GAO's report, the average annual life-cycle cost in 1997 is $282 millions for CV vs. $444 millions for CVN.

Click to expand...

If you read the comment, you might find that OP said “another 2 replenishment ships” - meaning specifically a reduction (e.g 1 or 2 AOR instead of 3 or 4). I’m not putting forward my own views, this is just a point of factual accuracy.

I also really hope that GAO report (which you haven’t linked?) isn’t comparing Midway / Forrestal / Kitty Hawk / JFK classes to Big E and Nimitz class, and factors in inflation (e.g. 2020 dollars are a fraction of the value that 1990 dollars were).

Might also be easier to start with this question — do you think the PLA are serious about meeting the goals and objectives that the Party has set out for them?

After that you can tell us your theory on how the PLA would “fight and win, anywhere” across the globe vs. the US, with only a small handful of CVs.

Geopolitics and global finance is this forum’s weak point - probably rightfully so, as it would make things very very messy. Unfortunately, just like with war, military equipment development is merely an extension of politics. I have lifelong experience in the former, and professional in the latter.

China is not burdened by the massive geographic handicap of having to rely on trade routes across thousands of miles of ocean in two directions. Only a portion of the Western Pacific and a swathe of the Indian ocean is relevant to China.

GTI said:

If you read the comment, you might find that OP said “another 2 replenishment ships” - meaning specifically a reduction (e.g 1 or 2 AOR instead of 3 or 4). I’m not putting forward my own views, this is just a point of factual accuracy.

Click to expand...

I read his comment, and I stand by my assessment: 150% increase in deployment range of the entire task force, yet 0% increase in replenishment needs and traverse time to be covered by replenishment ships.

GTI said:

I also really hope that GAO report (which you haven’t linked?) isn’t comparing Midway / Forrestal / Kitty Hawk / JFK classes to Big E and Nimitz class, and factors in inflation (e.g. 2020 dollars are a fraction of the value that 1990 dollars were).

Click to expand...

Here is the link to the report:
For the overall lifecycle cost, JFK was compared against Big E and Nimitz. Inflation was taken in to account using Present Value Analysis.

GTI said:

Might also be easier to start with this question — do you think the PLA are serious about meeting the goals and objectives that the Party has set out for them?

After that you can tell us your theory on how the PLA would “fight and win, anywhere” across the globe vs. the US, with only a small handful of CVs.

Click to expand...

That is a loaded question. Why must PLA "fight and win, anywhere" across the globe vs. the US? I do not think that's the current strategy of the Chinese government. Such strategy wouldn't even be possible with 12x CVNs due to a lack of foreign bases to support global deployment. China's military strategy is to make it unfathomably expensive for the US to military confront China. This strategy is working quite well, and the US now resorts to take over the rest of the world.

In my humble and private opinion, the US can deploy a maximum of half of its aircraft carriers against China in the event of a conflict, because it has to deal with the defense of the Atlantic coast, the Middle East and other major engagements. China would then need about 6 full-fledged aircraft carriers for full-fledged defense, so after the Type 004 it should build 3 more (if we count both older Kuznetsovs under certain conditions, of course) equal to 1 US ship.
In reality, it is nonsense to attack an equal opponent. So the real need is even lower in terms of scale.
And on top of that, the tactical advantage of its own coast and the air power of the ground forces, right? So there is a bunch of US military contractors behind those 9 ships, right? And I include considerations about a possible attack by Chinese ships on the US Pacific fleet, even 15 of them would not be enough for that, if we take into account the necessary logistics and the strength of the US Air Force.

Racek49 said:

In my humble and private opinion, the US can deploy a maximum of half of its aircraft carriers against China in the event of a conflict, because it has to deal with the defense of the Atlantic coast, the Middle East and other major engagements. China would then need about 6 full-fledged aircraft carriers for full-fledged defense, so after the Type 004 it should build 3 more (if we count both older Kuznetsovs under certain conditions, of course) equal to 1 US ship.

Click to expand...

Chinese ships aren't magic though, US ships needs maintenance, so does Chinese ships. Realistically only 2/3 of the carriers would be available for immediate deployment optimistically which means you'd want 9 carriers to have 6 carriers in deployable condition if absolutely required.

The numbers are as follows: The US can realistically deploy two thirds of the 6, that is 4. Against that, China would have to deploy 4 of the 6 (3 large and two Kuznetsov or other combinations. Which is quite realistic. We can probably agree on that.
Sometime about 3 years ago I heard a report here that a Chinese official mentioned the need for 5 aircraft carriers. Well, that would correspond to my rather simple reasoning.
I apologize if I expressed myself badly, my English is not very good. But I really wasn't talking about magic. Greetings, my friend.