Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

Finn McCool said:

Why do you think that the USN even has to go into the Taiwan Strait? This isn't WWI. The USN only has to sit withih aircraft, Harpoon and Tomahawk range of the Strait. Even American subs wouldn't have too. They would be much more deadly in an area where the Chinese don't expect them and can't concentrate their subs (or it would be a major hinderance to the operation to concentrate them there.). For example, if a crisis is brewing, the US can dispatch two LA class subs of the home port of the Chinese fleets and destroy ships that are in port as well as land based infrastructure when war begins. The Chinese could put as many subs into and around the Straits as they wanted, but when the US gained air and surface superiority, (as they definately would.) the subs would be done. They would be hunted from the air. Finally, diesel subs have to return to port and be refueled. So when they are slowly making their way back to Shanghai or whereever, they could be ambushed by American subs lying in wait, outside of the "controlled" waters of the Taiwan Strait.

Click to expand...

Isn't this exactly the scenario that was wargamed by the US National Defense University? (Quoted below.) The USN was unable to close in to the Taiwan Strait and had to lob cruise missiles from stand off distance.

According to this wargame, 3 CVBG were not able to gain air superiority under those conditions. Remember that the PLAAF is there too! How many Sukhois and J-10's can PLAAF bring to the fight? Not to mention all those AWACS and SAM assets. I admit that if 5 or more CVBGs were there, it would be a different story.

In one simulation, the American side intended to use the F-22 and the JSF to attack the airfields and missile bases of the PLAAF under cover of night, and then launch fighters from carriers to attack targets along the coastline. And then, within 5 days, they intended to bring a battalion (?? not sure about this) of ground troops to the front lines so marines can be dropped deep behind enemy lines. But in the course of the simulation, 3 carriers could not get close to the mainland because they were threatened by antiship missiles. All 250 fighters on board were useless. The American side could only use B-2's and cruise missiles, but their payload was not sufficient to achieve objectives. The American side is also worried that, in a conflict, Taiwan, S. Korean and Japan would not be willing to let them attack from their bases. So the supply line would be long and vulnerable to attack from PLAN subs.

Click to expand...

Without achieving air superiority from a distance, the USN is stuck with a stalemate. But in a Taiwan invasion scenario, time is of the essence for the USN.



Sea Dog and IDont..... you point out that US nuke subs are quieter than their Soviet counterparts but what about diesel electrics? They are still the quietest out there; surely this balances out the US advantage in nuke subs. And overall, the Soviets had a quantitative advantage in subs.

Yes, the USN has a lot of experience dealing with Kilos but I'm sure the Chinese side is improving its diesel electric technology and tactics all the time. The reason why the PLAN modern surface fleet is so small is because the strategic emphasis is on submarines. They are in home waters and I'm sure they run circles around every regional navy.

Roger604 said:

Isn't this exactly the scenario that was wargamed by the US National Defense University? (That I translated a few pages back.) The USN was unable to close in to the Taiwan Strait and had to lob cruise missiles from stand off distance.

According to this wargame, 2 CVBG were not able to gain air superiority under those conditions. Remember that the PLAAF is there too! How many Sukhois and J-10's can PLAAF bring to the fight? Not to mention all those AWACS and SAM assets. I admit that if 5 or more CVBGs were there, it would be a different story.

Without achieving air superiority from a distance, the USN is stuck with a stalemate. But in a Taiwan invasion scenario, time is of the essence for the USN.



Seadog and IDont..... you point out that US nuke subs are quieter than their Soviet counterparts but what about diesel electrics? They are still the quietest out there; surely this balances out the US advantage in nuke subs. And overall, the Soviets had a quantitative advantage in subs.

Yes, the USN has a lot of experience dealing with Kilos but I'm sure the Chinese side is improving its diesel electric technology and tactics all the time. The reason why the PLAN modern surface fleet is so small is because the strategic emphasis is on submarines. They are in home waters and I'm sure they run circles around every regional navy.

Click to expand...

I know that I said that I will not participate in this debate anymore but there are few things in your logic whit which I have some problems…

Firstly I do not understand why you totally disregarding Taiwan’s military? Do you think that ROCN will joust sink its ships at the first site of PLAN?

Secondly I hope you know that most modern Chinese diesel subs you are talking about are late 70s cold war design whit little improvements?
Diesel subs which gave USN ASW assets run for there money are most modern western designs like Collins, Gotland and type 212 subs… Whit old types they never had that problems…

So please tell me what do you think that ROC military will do and how many modern surface, air and sub assets will PLAN be left with to deal whit USN (since we all agreed that this war can happen only in case of Taiwan scenario )?

Hi Roger I always enjoy your post.

Isn't this exactly the scenario that was wargamed by the US National Defense University? (That I translated a few pages back.) The USN was unable to close in to the Taiwan Strait and had to lob cruise missiles from stand off distance.

According to this wargame, 3 CVBG were not able to gain air superiority under those conditions. Remember that the PLAAF is there too! How many Sukhois and J-10's can PLAAF bring to the fight? Not to mention all those AWACS and SAM assets. I admit that if 5 or more CVBGs were there, it would be a different story.

Without achieving air superiority from a distance, the USN is stuck with a stalemate. But in a Taiwan invasion scenario, time is of the essence for the USN.

Click to expand...

The problem with that senerio is that it is just a war game. You know that the US Naval War college conducted a similar war game some years ago. In their secinero the US was replled by massive missile attacks by the PLA. But war games are just that..War Games.

I know you fellows are pretty young but in late 1990 a war game was conducted on Tv(CNN I think) pitting the US & colition forces against Iraq. The Colition forces won but there were massive casulties on the colition side which included the sinking of USN ships.. We all know the real result.

It is correct to assume that the USN alone could not gain air superiorty. Just not enough assets. But the combined assets of the USN and USAF assest flying out of Guam and other bases would more than likely overwhelm the PLAAF and and gain air superiorty. The US armed forces are a team. Like many other nations.

Yeah war is just game of politician, any one that like war should be ashamed of them self.

ff

Ok, back to the original topic, Do you guys think that china should take more time at the 052, or should move on with some thing like DDX?

Firstly I do not understand why you totally disregarding Taiwan’s military? Do you think that ROCN will joust sink its ships at the first site of PLAN?

Click to expand...

depends on how much theyre paid at the time . i i were rich taiwanese guy with a sports car and girlfriend at home, I wouldnt stick around with the military during war and fight for a nearly lost cause. Morale isnt great for the taiwanese military. Neither is pay. Its military isnt that imposing, and can be decapitated with one good preliminary strike.

Secondly I hope you know that most modern Chinese diesel subs you are talking about are late 70s cold war design whit little improvements?
Diesel subs which gave USN ASW assets run for there money are most modern western designs like Collins, Gotland and type 212 subs… Whit old types they never had that problems…

Click to expand...

China's Mings are on the verge of retirement. The rest are mid-90's technology or higher. since the yuans stats arnt revealed fo all we know, it could be the most advanced diessl sub on earth.

I know you fellows are pretty young but in late 1990 a war game was conducted on Tv(CNN I think) pitting the US & colition forces against Iraq. The Colition forces won but there were massive casulties on the colition side which included the sinking of USN ships.. We all know the real result.

Click to expand...

As for the u.s performing better in war than wargames...its more like the u.s performing worse in wargames purposely. By the late 1990s, the u.s and coalition had already clobbered iraq once, so this kind of scenario is completely set-up and unrealistic.

Roger604 said:

Sea Dog and IDont..... you point out that US nuke subs are quieter than their Soviet counterparts but what about diesel electrics? They are still the quietest out there; surely this balances out the US advantage in nuke subs. And overall, the Soviets had a quantitative advantage in subs.

Yes, the USN has a lot of experience dealing with Kilos but I'm sure the Chinese side is improving its diesel electric technology and tactics all the time. The reason why the PLAN modern surface fleet is so small is because the strategic emphasis is on submarines. They are in home waters and I'm sure they run circles around every regional navy.

Click to expand...

Good points Roger. I won't dispute what you're saying here. Diesel subs are definitely quieter than their nuke counterparts. I'm not arguing that. They do indeed have a definite advantage in quietness. But is it enough? The nuke subs have advantages in every other area including sensors. And also, I am saying that their low acoustical characteristics are directly related to their speed. Above 5 knots, they are easier to detect in all ocean environments. That means they lack true mobility. And running faster on batteries drains batteries rapidly. At some point they need to surface or snorkel to recharge. This is a very noisy, time consuming, and vulnerable activity. It takes hours to do this. If running at tactical high speeds you can drain a diesel subs batteries in as little as 2 hours. At flank speeds you may only have one hours worth of endurance. Only at low speeds can a Kilo remain submerged for a couple of weeks. And diesels need alot of naval support to function. That means you destroy their basing infrastructure, these diesels are obsolete in as little as 30-60 days. No base or replenishment means diesel threat is neutralized.

Plus how good are the sensors on a Kilo or Yuan? From what I understand, Kilos are still using MGK-400's. Not in the same league as even BQQ-5. I'm not sure what Yuan uses though. But I can imagine its similar. Yuan, at least from the outside, is similar to a Kilo. And Seawolf and Virginia at tactical speeds are nearly as quiet as diesels. Their tactical speeds are above 12 knots. Flight III LA's also have a good tactical speed but not as high. But they also use an advanced version of BQQ-10. And there is still the question about how much time Chinese units spend at sea. Sonar operators require alot of time on sonar consoles to be proficient. The more QUALITY time at sea the better. Forget the time they spend out there doing pretty sea parades as others here have speculated they're doing. I'm not sure I buy that excuse myself.

But all the above doesn't mean I don't respect the impact of diesel subs. They are effective and relevant platforms. I'm just saying there are very effective ways to deal with them. The USN I served with understood this.

isthvan said:

Firstly I do not understand why you totally disregarding Taiwan’s military? Do you think that ROCN will joust sink its ships at the first site of PLAN?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Taiwan ain't exactly a pushover. China is in no position to take Taiwan in 1 or 2 weeks.

bd popeye said:

But war games are just that..War Games.

Click to expand...

The US has war games all the times. And the results are mixed. Plus the ones I was a part of assumed enemy units at 100% full strength and 100% full readiness. It's also assumed that all enemy weapons at 100% effectiveness. Yet we apply statistical anomalies to our side. These exercises have only worked to give us better preparation.

BTW, I saw open source results from a test before the first Gulf War that showed we would lose 30,000 troops in the first month, and we would lose at least 1 naval ship if Iraq launched naval strikes from Mirage jets. They also said Iraq had enough to successfully eliminate 1 or 2 forward air bases and we needed to be prepared to quickly retreat from these areas if necessary. They assumed we would lose at least 200 combat aircraft in the first month. Yet, look how it turned out.

Diesel subs are definitely quieter than their nuke counterparts. I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that their low acoustical characteristics is directly related to their speed. Above 5 knots, they are easier to detect in all ocean environments. That means they lack true mobility. And running faster on batteries drains batteries rapidly. At some point they need to surface to recharge. A very noisy and vulnerable activity. It takes hours to do this. If running at tactical high speeds you can drain a diesel subs batteries in as little as 2 hours. At flank speeds you may only have one hours worth of endurance. Only at low speeds can a Kilo remain submerged for a couple of weeks. And diesels need alot of naval support to function. That means you destroy their basing infrastructure, these diesels are obsolete in as little as 30-60 days. No base or replenishment means diesel threat is neutralized.

Click to expand...

This is taiwan strait, not the open sea. PLAN ssks will not a be at a shortage for bases. they do not neccesarily hunt for u.s/taiwanese vessels. They can wait along certain routes and ambush. surface vessels of the PLAN may also try to force the ROCn ships along certain routes, if you get my meaning.

Plus how good are the sensors on a Kilo or Yuan? From what I understand, Kilos are still using MGK-400's. Not in the same league as even BQQ-5. I'm not sure what Yuan uses though. But I can imagine its similar. Yuan, at least from the outside, is similar to a Kilo. And Seawolf and Virginia at tactical speeds are nearly as quiet as diesels. Their tactical speeds are above 12 knots. Flight III LA's also have a good tactical speed but not as high. But they also use an advanced version of BQQ-10. And there is still the question about how much time Chinese units spend at sea. The more QUALITY time at sea the better. Forget the time they spend out there doing pretty sea parades as others here have speculated they're doing. I'm not sure I buy that excuse myself.

Click to expand...

as a military person, you should know better than to juidge equipment from the outside.I cannot beleive you are willing to assume the yuan and kilo function the same because they look the same. The m-400Em on later kilos is much more up to date, though still not the same as u.s sonars.
I wont dispute your facts on u.s ships, you are the expert there.

I will add my two cents about war games...

Prior to "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the US military conducted a few wargames in which they basically pitted the US Military against a fictional military with capabilites that were about the same as the Iraqi military before the First Gulf War. They picked a retired Colonel from Vietnam to lead the enemy force. He was one of the most successful American commanders in Vietnam (forget his name), and always took an "unconventional" look at the situation. He basically was unaffected by the whole "network-centric" warfare that Rummy has been so crazy about by doing things like arranging for motorcycle couriers before battle even began to counteract the jamming of radio waves. I forget how battle went, but in the end the US military lost several troopships jampacked full of Marines, and a whole lot of ground troops due to a clever combination of guerilla tactics and tanks. I think they won in the end though. The story shows that the capability of a force is extremely dependent on its leader. Saddam commanded basically the same force, and was dealt a crushing defeat. So there you go. War games are screwy. Their good for building experience, but not for predicting the future.

I think that the USN would send 5 or 6 carriers to deal with PLAN and the PLAAF .Although the US would lose a few surface combatants and maybe some subs in addition to quite a lot of planes, it would win decisively. The Chinese simply can't do much, even invade Taiwan, against that kind of a force. Even with air combat on-going, the USN could still keep up strikes by Hornets/JSFs armed with Harpoons and escorted by JSFs and/or F-22s. In addition to Tomahawks coming from subs, crusiers and destroyers, as well as constant flights of B-1s, B-52s and B-2s firing missles from standoff range. It would be able to defeat the PLAN, or at least keep it from landing/supporting, reprovisioning and reinforcing a landing on Taiwan.

Let's get off this topic. It's been beaten to death over and over again .

Finn McCool said:

I will add my two cents about war games...

Prior to "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the US military conducted a few wargames in which they basically pitted the US Military against a fictional military with capabilites that were about the same as the Iraqi military before the First Gulf War. They picked a retired Colonel from Vietnam to lead the enemy force. He was one of the most successful American commanders in Vietnam (forget his name), and always took an "unconventional" look at the situation. He basically was unaffected by the whole "network-centric" warfare that Rummy has been so crazy about by doing things like arranging for motorcycle couriers before battle even began to counteract the jamming of radio waves. I forget how battle went, but in the end the US military lost several troopships jampacked full of Marines, and a whole lot of ground troops due to a clever combination of guerilla tactics and tanks. I think they won in the end though. The story shows that the capability of a force is extremely dependent on its leader. Saddam commanded basically the same force, and was dealt a crushing defeat. So there you go. War games are screwy. Their good for building experience, but not for predicting the future.

I think that the USN would send 5 or 6 carriers to deal with PLAN and the PLAAF .Although the US would lose a few surface combatants and maybe some subs in addition to quite a lot of planes, it would win decisively. The Chinese simply can't do much, even invade Taiwan, against that kind of a force. Even with air combat on-going, the USN could still keep up strikes by Hornets/JSFs armed with Harpoons and escorted by JSFs and/or F-22s. In addition to Tomahawks coming from subs, crusiers and destroyers, as well as constant flights of B-1s, B-52s and B-2s firing missles from standoff range. It would be able to defeat the PLAN, or at least keep it from landing/supporting, reprovisioning and reinforcing a landing on Taiwan.

Let's get off this topic. It's been beaten to death over and over again .

Click to expand...

I want to get off this topic too. Cause it's been beaten to death. But just one thing.....

I agree with you 90% that your scenario would be accurate. But a few caveats:

1) Chinese side has the initiative. They can attack when the US is preoccupied with something else. US effectiveness *might* go way down fighting two fronts.

2) Getting 5 CVBGs together will take almost a month. Attacking with less than that, say 3 CVBGs, risks serious losses / stalemale. Taiwan may not last more than 5 days.

3) JSF? If we are setting this scenario 5 years into the future, we have to recognize that PLA technology advancement is very fast. They will have a lot of new gears (rush JXX production, serial produce Type 093, new ballistic missiles, vastly improved C3ISR, EW etc.).

Roger604 said:

1) Chinese side has the initiative. They can attack when the US is preoccupied with something else. US effectiveness *might* go way down fighting two fronts.

2) Getting 5 CVBGs together will take almost a month. Attacking with less than that, say 3 CVBGs, risks serious losses / stalemale. Taiwan may not last more than 5 days.

3) JSF? If we are setting this scenario 5 years into the future, we have to recognize that PLA technology advancement is very fast. They will have a lot of new gears (rush JXX production, serial produce Type 093, new ballistic missiles, vastly improved C3ISR, EW etc.).

Click to expand...

1. Nope. US would have the initiative as it would be able to choose the time and place of attack. Since Chinese defenders couldn't be everywhere at once, the rest is elementary. The attacker would call the shots in this environment. I submit, the US's goal would be to put China on defense as quickly as possible and force them to divert offensive resources into a defensive posture. That's easily done.

2. Actually there are always between 6-9 carriers at sea at all times. Diverting 5 of these would be rather easy. I know for a fact the USN could divert 5 CVBG's to this region in 72 hours or less. Not to mention 20 - 30 or so SSN's/SSGN.

3. The USA, through DARPA, internal military projects, and private sector interests already has future generation technology developed. Just not deployed. There are alot of technology demonstrators that have been built then shelved. It only needs to be fielded. For example Sea Lance could be produced real quick. So could the HyStrike Hypersonic missiles. DDX, CGX are already underway and could be accelerated very quickly. But at any rate it wouldn't matter. This type of war would escalate very rapidly and I believe it would be decisively over within days anyway. The USA just wouldn't allow China the time or resources to field anything. And at this time, they could do it without any of these future projects deployed.