Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
:confused: :confused:

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!!:( :(


What you are doing in that comparison is that you are allowing the PLAN to use its best ships while the JMSDF uses "a typical" fleet composition. If you want it to be fare, have the JMSDF use its best ships all the time, such as a fleet of 4 Kongos + 2 Atago + 2 DDH.
 

szbd

Junior Member
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.

I don't think political officer is a problem and it's impossible to get rid of them. It's more impossible than China suddenly stop the production of new destoyers and reproduce 051.

The political officers go to navy politics academy before get promoted, while chief officer go to navy command academy. Political officers are more like administrative officers not incharge of command and control.
 

szbd

Junior Member
What you are doing in that comparison is that you are allowing the PLAN to use its best ships while the JMSDF uses "a typical" fleet composition. If you want it to be fare, have the JMSDF use its best ships all the time, such as a fleet of 4 Kongos + 2 Atago + 2 DDH.

I want a fair play, not one side sure lose. I think it's impossible for any combination of 8 current PLAN ships to penetrate the AAW net of 4 kongos. So how would I know how modern ships fight?
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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.

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!!

Well term modern has diferent meaning in these two nations. ships that you outcluded are only sligthly inferior to the newest and most modern chinese vessels.

But to answer to your question, Think of this: Ships engage each others with weapons made fot that purposes and they defend themselves against those weapons with weapons fitted for that purpose in par with ECM and other passive defence ways. But your idea (taking equal portion of each navy) is like counting boardsides of old battle lines where they migth have had some meaning in the ol' days, it really doesent give any answer in modern world....exept if those two fleets would both got a crazy idea to sail in battle line and engage each others in that (as migth it would please my imagination, you and I know it will never be like that;) )

So your assumtion doesent present any realistic scenario in modern naval enverioment as no naval force seeks that sort of confrontation any more....otherwise the all big gun armoured ships would be still vital and would consist the bulk of modern navies. So I suggest you to rethink the scenario before any sort of answerss can be given, becouse in those limits you gave, the outcome would be as unknown as would be situation where two hostile SAM batteries engage in open field with tank comppany tactics.
 

szbd

Junior Member
Well term modern has diferent meaning in these two nations. ships that you outcluded are only sligthly inferior to the newest and most modern chinese vessels.

But to answer to your question, Think of this: Ships engage each others with weapons made fot that purposes and they defend themselves against those weapons with weapons fitted for that purpose in par with ECM and other passive defence ways. But your idea (taking equal portion of each navy) is like counting boardsides of old battle lines where they migth have had some meaning in the ol' days, it really doesent give any answer in modern world....exept if those two fleets would both got a crazy idea to sail in battle line and engage each others in that (as migth it would please my imagination, you and I know it will never be like that;) )

So your assumtion doesent present any realistic scenario in modern naval enverioment as no naval force seeks that sort of confrontation any more....otherwise the all big gun armoured ships would be still vital and would consist the bulk of modern navies. So I suggest you to rethink the scenario before any sort of answerss can be given, becouse in those limits you gave, the outcome would be as unknown as would be situation where two hostile SAM batteries engage in open field with tank comppany tactics.

Please just give me the answer to the following statement, given the two fleets I proposed, true or false:

1. AShW missiles fireing at long range need relay guidance only available from helicopters
2. Helicopters can't survive if they do want to guide the missiles
3. So AShW missiles can only be fired when enemy ships are in vision range

the senario can be Japanese fleet is escorting some 10-knot speed big ships. Chinese navy wanna capture those ships. Please forgive my stubbornness but I'm not quite interested in the applicability (is this an actual word in English?) of the senario, what I wanna know is HOW MODERN SHIPS FIGHT EACH OTHER:(
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Please just give me the answer to the following statement, given the two fleets I proposed, true or false:

1. AShW missiles fireing at long range need relay guidance only available from helicopters
2. Helicopters can't survive if they do want to guide the missiles
3. So AShW missiles can only be fired when enemy ships are in vision range

the senario can be Japanese fleet is escorting some 10-knot speed big ships. Chinese navy wanna capture those ships. Please forgive my stubbornness but I'm not quite interested in the applicability (is this an actual word in English?) of the senario, what I wanna know is HOW MODERN SHIPS FIGHT EACH OTHER:(

Lets assume a "traditional" naval engagement (Ships only).

In naval surface warfare, the key is to detect the enemy while avoiding detection. Much time and effort is spent to deny the enemy the chance to detect your forces.

As a result, emmision control is vital. There are three states, A, B and C. A is no emissions, B is limited emissions (no unique emissions), and C is unrestricted. EMCON is not a blanket condition across the fleet. The surface units can be at A while a sufficiently distant AEW aircraft can be at C.

Then there is Electronic SUpport Measures (ESM)

ESM is the passive detection of enemy electromagnetic (EM) emissions. The radiated energy of an emitter (e.g. radar) can be detected far beyond the range at which it returns a usable result to its user. Modern ESM can identify the actual class of the emitter, which helps identify the unit on which it is used. Passive cross-fixing between a number of units can locate a source to a reasonably small area and give some hint to direction and speed. ESM fixes are placed in three classes: Detected, Tracking and Targeted, depending on the accuracy of the fix and whether a unit's course and speed has been derived. Of course for ESM to work the enemy must 'co-operate' by using their emitters.

The fact that a missile launched on a passive fix from over-the-horizon is usually deadly, creates a central problem for a naval force -- when, and even if, units should radiate, and if not how to detect the enemy? This is detectability vs. survivability. The need to obtain a targeting solution has to be balanced against the enemy's ability to do the same. Although once a commander feels that his fleet's position is known to the enemy a move to active emissions may be vital to prevent destruction, or else the only warning of incoming missiles will be when they turn on their terminal guidance systems.

A JMSDF fleet (typical of 8 ships with 8 helo) will send out Helicopters on radar picket duty at ENCOM state C, the rest of the fleet can remain at A relying on data link information from the helo.

The PLAN is at a dis-advantage here. Though it has heliborne AEW, it does not have the same level of network infrastructure as the JMSDF. Most likely, its ships will have to radiate in order for its commander to see a clearer picture.

The Harpoon missile is a very good missile. It can be launch on an off axis bearing, using its auto pilot to attack the target ship from a bearing that does not betray the location of your forces. This lessens the threat of a snap shot, a blind firing of an AShM towards the bearing of the incoming missile.

Lastly, PLAN anti-missile capability is still at its infancy. It will have a hard time shooting a Harpoon missile.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
1) yeas. But also from aircrafts and in future (and in Soviet Union Granit system) from satelites
2) Yeas and Now. It depends so much in conditions where the engement takes place. Most common type of surface attack is to seek suprise, hit and run methods that so caricharistically have marked both VMF and PLAN in the past. It counts multible missiles to be launched from maxium distance and that the firing units imideatly retreat from the scene before the opponent can retaliate.
Also the idea that the Midquidance helicopters cannot operate would mean that both forces have the air superiority in the area and that, well is impossible. Only one of the "players" would naturally have it or neither will. It would also mean that both "players" would need to have AEW and radar coverance to the area...
3) If there isent then yeas

But if you want to know how ships figth against each other, it would be as broad as asking how land forces figth against each other. All depends on the situation where the engement takes place and what doctrines the fleets will use. Its rather simple to realise that "Western" navies like Japanese and "Eastern" like PLAN and VMF have two completely different philosophy to aproach the situation.

but my time is short and I cannot cover those differences at this moment, I suggest while waiting my return to read writen material of both sides...some good martime encyclopedia of Convays publishing house migth be good thing to start:)


edit: well Idont's post is really good so i dont need to return to this, do I ;)...
 
Last edited:

beijingcar

New Member
"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 "

I never said PLA could knock out all of ROCF airfields or PLA would use nuke against carrier groups. But we do know China can knock out a satellite in time of war while Japan has not got that capability. As far as how many Satellites China can kill at one given time, you guess is as good as mine. My arguement is that we should not just compare one country's single platform to another's. War is not fought that way.

To " SZBD": if you count the civilian survey ships from both countries. China still came out ahead, that including the 5 Chinese YuanWang class ships and two new ones building. And Japan has no comparable class of ships. BTW, all these P3c and E767 can not do their job if Japan has no supremacy in the air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
I never said PLA could knock out all of ROCF airfields or PLA would use nuke against carrier groups.

*Sigh*

I never said you did. I said it was the same sort of argument (one I've seen far too many times).

But we do know China can knock out a satellite in time of war

No, we do not know that China can knock out another country's spy satellites in time of war. We know that it has a theoretical capability that may or may not work when required.
 

beijingcar

New Member
"No, we do not know that China can knock out another country's spy satellites in time of war. We know that it has a theoretical capability that may or may not work when required"
that just say that we disagree on this point till real war starts. Also I would think the U.S military and Japanese military think the PLA has that capability. If you are the military chief from the Japanese military and thinking about a war situation with PLA, and if you are not worried about your spy and communication Sats being knocked out by the PLA, you are putting your head in the sand, and we all know the result of putting your head in the sand is get you A** kicked.
 
Last edited:
Top