PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

antiterror13

Brigadier
According to Vice Admiral Ling-li Lan (ROC Navy retired), said in a seminar held in Taipei at August 15, PLA Navy will own 3 carriers on or before 2020. And DF-21 ASBM already constitute 2,500km anti-access range. Besides, PLA Navy has more Aegis ships than USN 7th fleet. (I guess 6x052C+ 4x052D > 2xTiconderoga + 7xBurke) Four-two of fifty two submarines are modernized.
However, he estimated that China still lay 30+ years behind US. And China may catch up with Japan's military power around 2030.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Number of ships is not necessarily better .... e.g one Tico probably has 2-3x firepower than 052C.

I don't believe China is 30 years behind the US ... I'd say ~10 years in technology in general. But for firepower, China navy may never reach parity with the US. For Japan, clearly China has already reached parity, if not exceeded ... and in 20130, definitely would be more powerful than the Japanese
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Well the Chinese vessels are not AEGIS vessels. Maybe AEGIS-like, but their firepower is significantly less.

On the US Navy side, each Tico has 128 cells, each Burke has 96. Two Ticos + seven Burkes means 928 VLS cells + 16 separate ASM launchers, so 944 missiles for nine vessels.

For the Type 052C/D, you have six "Cs" with 48 cells each plus eight ASM launchers each, plus four "Ds" with 64 cells each. That's a total of 532 VLS plus 48 separate ASM launchers, or 580 missiles for ten ships.

US Navy 7th fleet AEGIS = 944 missiles
PLAN all fleets AEGIS-like= 580 missiles

A lot less overall firepower.

You forgot just one tiny little detail :p US ships currently don't have anti-ship missiles for those VLS , so they would have to relay on old Harpoon launchers (removed from some ships) . On the other hand, Chinese could and would pack ASMs in their VLS. Therefore, in case of conflict, Chinese ships would have an advantage until LRASM arrives .

I deliberately didn't calculate in air power , because we have been comparing surface combatants . In case of war, both sides would try to avoid areas where enemy air units could strike them, but that is another story .
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
According to Vice Admiral Ling-li Lan (ROC Navy retired), said in a seminar held in Taipei at August 15, PLA Navy will own 3 carriers on or before 2020. And DF-21 ASBM already constitute 2,500km anti-access range. Besides, PLA Navy has more Aegis ships than USN 7th fleet. (I guess 6x052C+ 4x052D > 2xTiconderoga + 7xBurke) Four-two of fifty two submarines are modernized.
However, he estimated that China still lay 30+ years behind US. And China may catch up with Japan's military power around 2030.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Poor assessment. For one, I doubt the PLAN will have 3 operational carriers by or at 2020. Maybe three in the water at most, but not in service.
And the 6 052C and 4 052D count is deceptive as only about the first four 052Cs are considered fully combat ready. Of the 052Ds, only 172 is even commissioned for goodness sake!

And I'm not sure why he thinks the PLA will only catch up to the JSDF by 2030, it will probably fully tilt navy wise by 2020. In terms of offensive air power, the PLAAF and PLANAF has quite a deal more long range strikers than the JASDF.

All in all, unimpressed with the assessment.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
You forgot just one tiny little detail :p US ships currently don't have anti-ship missiles for those VLS , so they would have to relay on old Harpoon launchers (removed from some ships) . On the other hand, Chinese could and would pack ASMs in their VLS. Therefore, in case of conflict, Chinese ships would have an advantage until LRASM arrives .

I deliberately didn't calculate in air power , because we have been comparing surface combatants . In case of war, both sides would try to avoid areas where enemy air units could strike them, but that is another story .
Nothing has been forgotten.

None of the Type 052C can carry a ASMs in their VLS.

The US Navy Tactical Tomahawk IV has a two-way data link which allows the missiles to be retargeted on the fly, and includes a TV camera with real time video feed, and cooperative engagement capabilities, being able to accept target data from multiple sources. They could be used for anti-shipping missions as they stand. In addition, a 2015 upgrade plans to add radar receivers to the missiles as well, for additional targeting capabilities.

Tactical Tomahak missiles have been in full rate production for several years.

The US and its allies would also work together in any major conflict involving any of them. They exercise regularly for cooperative engagement and any of the three Korean AEGIS vessel with their 16 ASMs and more VLS cruise missiles, or the six JMSDF, with their eight ASMs each would be a part of any Surface Action Group, or Carrier Strike Group with US vessels.

With the Tactical Tomahak capabilities, the Tico ASMs, the Burke flight I and II ASMs, and all of those allied ASMs, their would be overwhelming force available. Now and for the foreseeable future.

Finally, you simply cannot set aside either of the probabe two US carriers working with these ships either. In any major conflict, the principe role of those AEGIS vessels would be to protect the carriers, who would sweep the sea of enemy surface combatants with their aie wing.

As I say, the PLAN is doing amazing things. But the reality is that in any major conflict that pulls in the US they would have to face the US, Japan, and probably South Korea. They are a long wys from being able to do that...and this does not even include the huge disparity of SSNs that the US would apply in such an event.

The PLAN has excellent AEGIS-like vessels, and will build many more. The eventual 18 Type 052C/D vessels, and probable 10-12 Type 055 vessels will be a critical and powerful force in the western Pacific. They will be modern, and very capable.

But, without large numbers of equally capable SSNs and 2-3 available carriers and their air wings, they would be overwhelmed.

It will be the late 2020s and into the 2030s, IMHO before the PLAN has successfully integrated and worked up all of those forces to prevent that from happening.

And the US and its allies will themselves not be static in the mean time.

Time will tell, and the naval technology development in the mean time will be very exciting and interesting to watch develop.
 
Last edited:

getready

Senior Member
Poor assessment. For one, I doubt the PLAN will have 3 operational carriers by or at 2020. Maybe three in the water at most, but not in service.
And the 6 052C and 4 052D count is deceptive as only about the first four 052Cs are considered fully combat ready. Of the 052Ds, only 172 is even commissioned for goodness sake!

And I'm not sure why he thinks the PLA will only catch up to the JSDF by 2030, it will probably fully tilt navy wise by 2020. In terms of offensive air power, the PLAAF and PLANAF has quite a deal more long range strikers than the JASDF.

All in all, unimpressed with the assessment.

Agree with this. I think he is overestimating the time to catchup to jsdf. The potential for china is superior to japan that much is certain. Backed up by her growing economy she will only continue to improve at a good fast rate. Let the others continue to foam in the mouth. Made me chuckle
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well the Chinese vessels are not AEGIS vessels. Maybe AEGIS-like, but their firepower is significantly less.

Well, obviously firepower isn't exactly the prerequisite we use to judge whether a warship is aegis-like or not. The Nansen class is an aegis warship with only one 8 cell module. And 052D has more missile load than aegis warships like Bazan, hobart.

It would do the world's defense media and military watchers a lot of good to differentiate between an "Aegis" warship, and an "Aegis (TM)" warship. :p
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Nothing has been forgotten.

None of the Type 052C can carry a ASMs in their VLS.

Not entirely clear. Originally they didn't carry ASMs in their VLS but that could be upgraded . Anyway , C version with 8 ASM is still better armed then Burke Flights without Harpoon.


The US Navy Tactical Tomahawk IV has a two-way data link which allows the missiles to be retargeted on the fly, and includes a TV camera with real time video feed, and cooperative engagement capabilities, being able to accept target data from multiple sources. They could be used for anti-shipping missions as they stand. In addition, a 2015 upgrade plans to add radar receivers to the missiles as well, for additional targeting capabilities.

Tomahawk block IV currently is not ASM, and you know it too :p Not only they don't have radar sensors (active or semi-active), they also cannot do terminal maneuvers, and I suspect they fly higher above the sea surface then Harpoons. Anyway, even Raytheon currently doesn't market them as anti-ship missiles, and that is telling something ;) Instead, they use weasel words like "planned upgrade" :

Planned upgrades to the Tomahawk Block IV include: upgraded communications, a more powerful warhead, and a new seeker designed to hit moving targets at sea or on land in darkness and all kinds of weather.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The US and its allies would also work together in any major conflict involving any of them. They exercise regularly for cooperative engagement and any of the three Korean AEGIS vessel with their 16 ASMs and more VLS cruise missiles, or the six JMSDF, with their eight ASMs each would be a part of any Surface Action Group, or Carrier Strike Group with US vessels.

Maybe, and maybe not. Anyway, if you are going that way, you would need to calculate what would Russia and North Korea do in case of such conflict .

Finally, you simply cannot set aside either of the probabe two US carriers working with these ships either. In any major conflict, the principe role of those AEGIS vessels would be to protect the carriers, who would sweep the sea of enemy surface combatants with their aie wing.

Agreed to the point, but if you want realistic comparison of forces in case of war, you would need to count in PLAAF, PLANAF and Second Artillery Corps . As I said, I restricted myself to limited comparison of surface combatants, without other elements .
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Not entirely clear. Originally they didn't carry ASMs in their VLS but that could be upgraded .
Hmm...sounds like both sides have thier share of what "could" happen. LOL!

thunderchief said:
Anyway , C version with 8 ASM is still better armed then Burke Flights without Harpoon.
But that accounts only for Burke Flight IIA. As I say, Burke Flight I and II also carry eight ASMs.


thunderchief said:
Agreed to the point, but if you want realistic comparison of forces in case of war, you would need to count in PLAAF, PLANAF and Second Artillery Corps . As I said, I restricted myself to limited comparison of surface combatants, without other elements .
Well, if it is close enough to the Chinese coast, this is all true, admittedly. Along with then including similar US assets.

But if there were a true naval battle, out in the blue water, or distant from the mainland, then each would have to rely on available naval forces.

An initial flash point may indeed have vessels one on one...but after that it would move to more task force type battle, outside of submarine actions.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
.......
Well, if it is close enough to the Chinese coast, this is all true, admittedly. Along with then including similar US assets.

But if there were a true naval battle, out in the blue water, or distant from the mainland, then each would have to rely on available naval forces.
..........

I don't think PLAN would have any plan to engage USN out in the blue water, not in 20 years time in my opinion. The battle if it happens (I do hope not) .... would be close enough to Chinese coast (within second island chain)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brumby

Major
Well, obviously firepower isn't exactly the prerequisite we use to judge whether a warship is aegis-like or not. The Nansen class is an aegis warship with only one 8 cell module. And 052D has more missile load than aegis warships like Bazan, hobart.

It would do the world's defense media and military watchers a lot of good to differentiate between an "Aegis" warship, and an "Aegis (TM)" warship. :p

Does anybody have some kind of facts based knowledge of the "Aegis type" capabilities in the type 052C or Type 52D vessels or are we mixing apples and oranges?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top