Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

I think for SSKs, their main adavantage are at low speed, when they are very quiet. A Ming cruise 5 knots underwater probably has a better chance against a type 212 passing nearby with 20 knots. So the main factors are tactics and luck. If a surface fleet fell right into a trap made by several SSKs, then the SSKs have a really good oppertunity to give the fleet a bad damage even if they had very good ASW equipments. But if a group of sub run at 20 knots try to intercept and attack a surface fleet, their chance is very small.

Get back to the japanese and chinese destroyers. Suppose two fleets try to take out each other, Japanese fleet has 2 Kongo + 6 takanami and chinese fleet has 2 051C+2 052B+2 052C+ 2 054A, how would they fight and what will be the result?

Ming sub is an old design, no matter how to modernize it, it still will have a lot short comings comapred to ture modern SSKs. The PLAN would like to replace all the Mings with the newer Song, but the Song also is outdated compare to the Newest JAP or German Subs. So if you are the PLAN, you have to make a choice, keep the ming class ( modernize it) so it will have 10 more years of service life left, or dump all the Ming, repalce them with all the not so new Song. The decision was made to keep the Ming ( I am sure $ is a issue also). In the late 1990s, the Egyptian navy's MIng Sub was able to sneak pass the U.S navy ASW net and got close to U.S Carrier teskforce. Also the U.S is still leasing the Sweed's Gotland class Sub to do more ASW training. If we look at the Yellow Sea with a average of 175 meters deep and East China Sea with average 300 meter deep, these are very similar environments to the sea next to Sweden. My point is that, if the U.S navy is not worried with the Ming, and Song and the Kilo in shallow waters, they would not bother to borrow the Gotland. As for who's Navy is better, the JAP's or PLAN, I think it is meaningless to compare single platform. War is fought as system Vs system, no one has written an answer for my questions: that is how the JAP airforce is going to achieve supremacy in the air? how the JAP will deal with a dependent C4I system? Please do not tell me the JAP has got 3 spy and 2 communication Satellites of their own, as you know, PLA has more Sats in the space and also has the ability to knock them out as well.

I think that was an Chinese made Romio of Egypt navy penetrated a US CBG 3 times in an exercise, not Ming. But that's probably because US navy intended to let it in. As for USN renting Gotland, I think your logic is not correct. USN simply conduct various kinds of training, they use SSKs for training doesn't mean they are worried about them. And why you are so sure that Japan does not have a C4I system for her militray force?

If we look at the Yellow Sea with a average of 175 meters deep and East China Sea with average 300 meter deep, these are very similar environments to the sea next to Sweden

Click to expand...

Martime conditions in chinese coast and sweden coast are as similar as are terrain of mars and moon, the hydrological conditions of Baltic sea are notorius of its unique and posess a challenging enverioment that had led into specialised solutions in both ASW and submarine desings. Comparing sub marine operational conditions by simply depth perscpective is rather pointless and missleading.

Get back to the japanese and chinese destroyers. Suppose two fleets try to take out each other, Japanese fleet has 2 Kongo + 6 takanami and chinese fleet has 2 051C+2 052B+2 052C+ 2 054A, how would they fight and what will be the result?

Click to expand...

Or do we count Japanese fleet with 4 Kongos, 5 Taganami and 9 Murasame as clearly superior vessels and 2 Asakase, 8 Asagiri and 11 Hatsuyuki class as fairly dated but stil modern (by PLAN standard)??

Ofcourse, If you want an outcome favorable to PLAN, you can minimize and neglect and ignore the JMSDF capacity, but think that as this way, If both forces looses half of your mentioned ships, Japanese would still have 2 Kongos, 2 Takanami class and all the ignored classes where as PLAN has lost half of its all modern surface force and left with 3 Destroyers and 1 frigate....

You are right, it is the Romio. Not the Ming. Sorry about that. As for U.S navy intended to let the Romio close in or not, we outsiders will never know. The Gotland is leased for 2 years, and the U.S navy is using the Gotland against all kinds of opponents ( both surface and air assets were used). It does not look like just simple training for me. As for JMSDF C4I system, they are integraded into the U.S defense network. Key intel go to the U.S military first then to the JMSDF military, just take a look at the number of survey and intelligence ships in the JMSDF navy service as compared to the number in the PLAN, you get the idea.

When refering to the JMSDF use that word>>JMSDF<< not your original word. Thanks.

In a war, it's all about intel, real time targeting, and crew training. Single platform counts little in the outcome of a war. Let just say that JSDF military is very worried ( maybe for the first time in modern history) about the PLAAF and PLAN's increasing capabilities. And the JSDF is right to get worried.

exactly, I think no one has the luxury of ignoring the rise of china and its generally aknowlidged that China has the resources to raise to challenge even USN in long term, and that would be essential if looked form geostrategical contest and from super power perspective.

But the reality remains that PLAN, after years of neglect and illsuited leadership and out dated doctrines has only recently begun to turn from coastal defence force into Fleet where As JMSDF enjoed "almoust" continuos link to the Nihon Kaigun and has been par with modern fleets since the 60's. This give JMSDF a huge advantage of what it comes to operate as a tactical and strategical level, and that is the key to succes in martime (as well as in other theathers) operations. History is full of examples where technologically superior naval forces have been defeaded by more innovative and flexible opponent.

We have to remember that PLAN still poses military ranks to ships wich have coused odd and embearesing situations where war games have failed when the most suitable command ship hasent been able to lead the task force as the other ships have held higher rank inside the brigade where they have been attached to the task unit.
the next step to PLAN is to out come these proplems (and get rid of the political officers and party councels in the chain of command) and create modern and flexible naval units able to produce blue water presence.

Gollevainen said:

Or do we count Japanese fleet with 4 Kongos, 5 Taganami and 9 Murasame as clearly superior vessels and 2 Asakase, 8 Asagiri and 11 Hatsuyuki class as fairly dated but stil modern (by PLAN standard)??

Ofcourse, If you want an outcome favorable to PLAN, you can minimize and neglect and ignore the JMSDF capacity, but think that as this way, If both forces looses half of your mentioned ships, Japanese would still have 2 Kongos, 2 Takanami class and all the ignored classes where as PLAN has lost half of its all modern surface force and left with 3 Destroyers and 1 frigate....

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Please read my previous posts in this thread. I just wanna know your (everyone in this forum) opinion on How do modern fleets consist of destoyers and frigates fight. I'm wondering if it's the case that they will vertuly fight within or not far beyond vision range since all the helicopters to provide relay guidance of AShW missiles can not survive from enemy's long range AAW systems. :coffee:

The reason how I made up the two fleets was quite simple.

1. This the thread about JMSDF and Chinese navy, so those two navies
2. I want modern ships, so those ships
3. I don't wanna see any solution like fire all your missiles towards the Kongo, so 2 Kongos
4. I think 1 Kongo is more capable in AAW than 1 052C+1 051C, so I have to put in all the best Chinese AAW destroyers to make a match
5. Make the strength about equal with equal numbered ships.

I know PLAN is far behind JMSDF. In the ideal Chinese navy thread I use 8 DDG+8FFG (all new stuff) to match Japan's 9DDG.

I JUST WANNA KNOW HOW MODERN SHIPS FIGHT!!

beijingcar said:

Please do not tell me the JAP has got 3 spy and 2 communication Satellites of their own, as you know, PLA has more Sats in the space and also has the ability to knock them out as well.

Click to expand...

The Chinese have shown they are able to shoot down an old weather satellite. We don't know whether they have more missiles, whether they're able to shoot down smaller satellites, etc. So don't even think about China being able to blind its enemies. It's like saying "China could destroy the ROCAF on the ground" or "China could just use a nuke against a USN carrier group" - it's what appears to be an easy answer, when in reality there's nothing easy about it.

beijingcar said:

You are right, it is the Romio. Not the Ming. Sorry about that. As for U.S navy intended to let the Romio close in or not, we outsiders will never know. The Gotland is leased for 2 years, and the U.S navy is using the Gotland against all kinds of opponents ( both surface and air assets were used). It does not look like just simple training for me. As for JMSDF C4I system, they are integraded into the U.S defense network. Key intel go to the U.S military first then to the JMSDF military, just take a look at the number of survey and intelligence ships in the JMSDF navy service as compared to the number in the PLAN, you get the idea.

When refering to the JMSDF use that word>>JMSDF<< not your original word. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I don't get the idea. Their survey ships may belong to civilian organizations and even if they didn't have many ships, they got a lot of intelligence planes, very good planes like P3C, E767, etc. Maybe they have a joint C&C structure with US, but you sure they don't have their own one?