Ideal PLAN Mobile Offshore Base.
- Thread starter proelite
- Start date
»Ø¸´: Ideal PLAN Mobile Offshore Base.
Why not just build 100 supertankers and set up a string of supertankers. China builds hundreds every year for the international merchant fleet market, the military could borrow a few.
Putting so many eggs in one basket is dumb, your giant unsinkable base with 500 aircraft could still be taken by an enemy and then used against you.
Why not just build 100 supertankers and set up a string of supertankers. China builds hundreds every year for the international merchant fleet market, the military could borrow a few.
Putting so many eggs in one basket is dumb, your giant unsinkable base with 500 aircraft could still be taken by an enemy and then used against you.
CottageLV
Banned Idiot
Re: »Ø¸´: Ideal PLAN Mobile Offshore Base.
Lol, both sides are too extreme. All I can say is that few hundred planes on an island is a big deterrence. Even for honorary guards (in this case, few hundred jets is much more than that), a small platoon of them is a huge existence, especially that of a major power, say China, US, or Russia. You don't have to have your entire military there. Even if you take over a few small bases, the superpower will send its entire military after you.
In about 15-20 years, China's naval power will match that of USSR's surface fleet during its height. You may provoke Italian or French oversea bases, but I'm sure no one dares to do that to USN or USSR navy. No one wants to get their country carpet-bombed like Vietnam. A lot of times, a lot of bases are symbolic and are just for logistics/supplies. Indians in the Himalayas is a great example. As cocky as they are, as small as Chinese presence may be in the region, Indians still don't dare to make any moves, because they know Chinese could mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops within weeks, and carpet-bomb New Dehli with missiles.
That is why overseas bases are important in stand-offs, but don't have to be that big.
Lol, both sides are too extreme. All I can say is that few hundred planes on an island is a big deterrence. Even for honorary guards (in this case, few hundred jets is much more than that), a small platoon of them is a huge existence, especially that of a major power, say China, US, or Russia. You don't have to have your entire military there. Even if you take over a few small bases, the superpower will send its entire military after you.
In about 15-20 years, China's naval power will match that of USSR's surface fleet during its height. You may provoke Italian or French oversea bases, but I'm sure no one dares to do that to USN or USSR navy. No one wants to get their country carpet-bombed like Vietnam. A lot of times, a lot of bases are symbolic and are just for logistics/supplies. Indians in the Himalayas is a great example. As cocky as they are, as small as Chinese presence may be in the region, Indians still don't dare to make any moves, because they know Chinese could mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops within weeks, and carpet-bomb New Dehli with missiles.
That is why overseas bases are important in stand-offs, but don't have to be that big.
Kurt
Junior Member
What about Soviet ideas of dual use equipment? Build a civilian fleet ship design that can be converted into a mobile base with a very high and very stable platform at sea to make operations for non naval aviators easier and thus boost your numbers.
The downside of such a large design will be defense because it'll be very difficult to hide it from enemy spotting as well as moving it at speed will be limited by structural stress. This is rather similar to infantry formations on land that had reduced movement if they needed to observe the integrity of a large formation line.
The advanatge is that you can easily boost your numbers and capability with an integrated airfield (better sortie performance). So I would opt for this design to be deployed under a strong land based cover and with the ability to split and reintegrate. This split and reintegrate idea could ease the supply docking defense vulnerability gap of current carriers and would allow to move the whole platform at disintegrated sprints as well as ease repairs by eliminating too damaged hulls, giving the whole system better resilence.
In Chinese naval strategy, platforms would be a good idea for the island chains. Especially helicopter and vehicle delivery platforms would be required while islands could offer an opportunity to quickly set up air strips on land, so that you get a mixed mode of operations for your fixed wing aircrafts with naval as well as land based assets.
These platforms would be a very bad idea beyond China's extended littorals of the second island chain because of the great vulnerability. They can't replace aircraft carriers in blue water projection and building them as permament assets would divert lots of money from the more valueable carriers. My 2 cents.
Concerning materials, pykrete in my opinion offers a nice solution for a swimming island platform at low costs. an alternative might be concrete. The idea would be rather to construct artificial islands. I would count these islands as land bases.
The downside of such a large design will be defense because it'll be very difficult to hide it from enemy spotting as well as moving it at speed will be limited by structural stress. This is rather similar to infantry formations on land that had reduced movement if they needed to observe the integrity of a large formation line.
The advanatge is that you can easily boost your numbers and capability with an integrated airfield (better sortie performance). So I would opt for this design to be deployed under a strong land based cover and with the ability to split and reintegrate. This split and reintegrate idea could ease the supply docking defense vulnerability gap of current carriers and would allow to move the whole platform at disintegrated sprints as well as ease repairs by eliminating too damaged hulls, giving the whole system better resilence.
In Chinese naval strategy, platforms would be a good idea for the island chains. Especially helicopter and vehicle delivery platforms would be required while islands could offer an opportunity to quickly set up air strips on land, so that you get a mixed mode of operations for your fixed wing aircrafts with naval as well as land based assets.
These platforms would be a very bad idea beyond China's extended littorals of the second island chain because of the great vulnerability. They can't replace aircraft carriers in blue water projection and building them as permament assets would divert lots of money from the more valueable carriers. My 2 cents.
Concerning materials, pykrete in my opinion offers a nice solution for a swimming island platform at low costs. an alternative might be concrete. The idea would be rather to construct artificial islands. I would count these islands as land bases.
Last edited:
Kurt, tankers flexibly together would not be stealth and therefor a target. Pykrete would not be stealth, it would however be heavy enough to average wave height. 90/10
Richard
Kurt
Junior Member
Thanks, this dual use ship idea certainly needs a paint job to increase stealth, as well as a design that doesn't create too many surfaces with different angles.
My modified idea is a slight modification of current fleet supply ship designs that can do civilian transports in peacetime and take over additional jobs in wartime (or free peace time military transports for these tasks). Custom building them for dual use offers a great possibility to increase triphibic capabilities.
There are two abilities that need to be integrated other than transporting goods, fuel, self-defense and a design that avoids enemy detection.
You need to load ground forces with their equipment and landing crafts (possibly in an elevator) and it must be able to land on deck, rearm and refuel rotary wing aircrafts with their base on other specialized ships (for range extension), like helicopter carriers/commando carriers.
Part of the equipment of ground forces can be suitable to quickly set up an airfield (including all-round defense) for fixed wing aircrafts of any size on any strip of land with supply ships replacing the storage of a carrier (a Land Ship Tank - LST design would be best) and offering the ability to switch positions on island chains for example. The ability for maritime range extension with air cover can be achieved at a lesser cost than an aircraft carrier and because of the ability to integrate large long range tankers overs longer stand off ranges. The downside is that capability for fixed wing aircraft bombing sorties won't equal that of aircraft carriers, but you can set up a fighter cover and do the destruction with triphibic operations instead (probably at a fraction of the material costs, but with more own loss of own life).
Concerning China, they won't be able to do totally without aircraft carriers, but this offers the possibility to use their current fleet structure to secure the most important part of their SLOC and coasts with a sea control ability equal to carrier forces at a fraction of their costs and would nicely improve area denial with unsinkable carriers (British term for their bases) on the island chains.
While stealth and self-defense ability are nice, sinking a fleet of thousands of fishing boats that deliver goods to offshore island air bases is a nightmare in asymmetric warfare costs because the missile/torpedo to destroy the shipping boat costs several times more than the target. The target is part of naval warfare system that limits operational options for destroying these boats with means other than long range precision strikes.
The idea to create large swimming off-shore mobile bases is rather stupid, as I realized because they are the most visible and most expensive target you can provide. Current PLAN concepts about dual use with large numbers of vessels are better.
Rethinking the pykrete idea, it's a cheap armour that is hard to destroy, use it for something small like a buoy or something that needs to be flexible and solid, like a makeshift landing dock for a new island base.
Last edited:
MOB-Kurt2.jpg
311.7 KB
X
Total Size: 552.7 KB
Files: 2
Basic
Kurt,
I took the liberty to draw up your idea.
Last edited:
