PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well that depends what you define as aegis type.

Generally they are combat management systems that integrate sensors (which usually includes a mainstay phased array MF radar), and a variety of weapons (usually with a focus on a competent air defense missile suite), with datalinking and some degree of CeC with other ships of one's navy, allowing handling of multiple targets and multiple kinds of targets both within a single ship and between multiple ships. Depending on the type of ship, more extensive command capabilities may also be present.

These are capabilities all respectfully present in 052C and 052D, through either a few rare official media reports, leaks, or simply logical deduction (given many of these such capabilities are fairly common place among less advanced ships)
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bltizo said:
Well that depends what you define as aegis type.

Generally they are combat management systems that integrate sensors (which usually includes a mainstay phased array MF radar), and a variety of weapons (usually with a focus on a competent air defense missile suite), with datalinking and some degree of CeC with other ships of one's navy, allowing handling of multiple targets and multiple kinds of targets both within a single ship and between multiple ships. Depending on the type of ship, more extensive command capabilities may also be present.

These are capabilities all respectfully present in 052C and 052D, through either a few rare official media reports, leaks, or simply logical deduction (given many of these such capabilities are fairly common place among less advanced ships)
Click to expand...

The real question is whether they work efficiently and effectively as intended by way of some tested environment e.g. simulated battle environment. The same measure would apply to Burke's and Type 45's. With that we have some form of comparison and meaningful categorization. Absent that it is merely assumption.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
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)
Click to expand...
Agreed...which is hugely constraining.

And with the advent of the X-47B, which is a miniature stealth bomber carrying two tons of all sorts of ordinance up o 4,000 km range, and which a single F-35C stealth fighter can control two of at range (or by an operator on the carrier, or else where), the opportunity for the US Navy to stand way off and cause significant attrition, may force an OPFOR to have to try and come out anyway.

These are all issues a PLAN CSG will have to seriously consider operationally.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Brumby said:
The real question is whether they work efficiently and effectively as intended by way of some tested environment e.g. simulated battle environment. The same measure would apply to Burke's and Type 45's. With that we have some form of comparison and meaningful categorization. Absent that it is merely assumption.
Click to expand...
Except that the Type 45s and AEGIS Burkes and Ticos are getting the chance to wok very closely together...up to Daring's being integrated fully within a US CSG.

I am sure the PLAN will have similar exercises internally themselves with their assets, and to some extent (not as integrated) with the Russians..
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Jeff Head said:
Agreed...which is hugely constraining.

And with the advent of the X-47B, which is a miniature stealth bomber carrying two tons of all sorts of ordinance up o 4,000 km range, and which a single F-35C stealth fighter can control two of at range (or by an operator on the carrier, or else where), the opportunity for the US Navy to stand way off and cause significant attrition, may force an OPFOR to have to try and come out anyway.

These are all issues a PLAN CSG will have to seriously consider operationally.
Click to expand...

True, but still there's no answer for the US Navy to deal effectively against the PLAN DF-21D ASBM.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
The real question is whether they work efficiently and effectively as intended by way of some tested environment e.g. simulated battle environment. The same measure would apply to Burke's and Type 45's. With that we have some form of comparison and meaningful categorization. Absent that it is merely assumption.
Click to expand...

Sure, but we don't know the answer to that. We only know capabilities which exist, but we don't know anything about how well they are implemented. But you can say that about any combat system that hasn't been tested in real world wartime situations that stretches its capabilities.

But that doesn't change the fact that the PLAN ships you asked about do fill the aegis criteria.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
Agreed...which is hugely constraining.

And with the advent of the X-47B, which is a miniature stealth bomber carrying two tons of all sorts of ordinance up o 4,000 km range, and which a single F-35C stealth fighter can control two of at range (or by an operator on the carrier, or else where), the opportunity for the US Navy to stand way off and cause significant attrition, may force an OPFOR to have to try and come out anyway.

These are all issues a PLAN CSG will have to seriously consider operationally.
Click to expand...

Worth mentioning range =\= effective combat radius, however UCAVs like X-47B will definitely offer a means for more stand off strike. The question is which road the USN takes for its ucav programme. I remember they were considering a platform less oriented around strike and more around recon a while back
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Equation said:
True, but still there's no answer for the US Navy to deal effectively against the PLAN DF-21D ASBM.
Click to expand...
Actually the threat of the DF-21D is being dealt with on several very effective levels::

1) First, is discovering what on earth, if anything, it is currently capable of, or may some day be capable of. To this day there has been no life-fire, full-up, end to end operational test of the DF-21D against any moving (much less maneuvering) vessel at sea. Not one. Unil that occurs successfully, and on multiple occasions proving its effectiveness...it remains so much talk. Now, the US is taking the development of such a system seriously and projecting what it might be capable of (and doing so very liberally) in any case. To that end:

2) More and more AEGIS vessels are equipped with Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities and missiles. A system which has been, and continues to be, live ire tested, very rigorously.

3) The US is in the operational test pase of a new anti-missile defense chaff cloud made up of stealth filaments for its ship to get behind.

4) The US has very strong passive and active electronics counter measures, both ship borne and air borne to fry the electronics of incoming missiles.

5) The US will soon deploy rail gun and then laser anti-missile defenses on its Capitol vessels.

6) The US has some of the best CIWS systems, both missile and gun systems available.

7) The US has developed, and continues to develop the capability to attack the anti-access systems at all levels (meaning the surveillance, detection, acquisition, targeting, firing, and delivery systems that go into a complete system like the DF-21D) from outside of the range of those systems. Defeating or seriously degrading any one of those portions of the combined system is an effective mission kill of the system

So, the US is very well prepared to challenge and defeat such a system should it become necessary.

My own thoughts are these. Until the PRC actually conducts several full-up, live-fire tests of such a syste against targets at sea, proving its effectiveness...I consider that effort as much a Sun Tsu disinformation, mis-direction, and calculated bluff program as it is an actual, operational system.

Is the PRC working on it? Yes, absolutely. Is it a capable, operational, and fully tested system at this point? IMHO...hardly.

But the US is prepared for it or other such threats in any case.

In the mean time, except for such a system being used in concert with the activities of the PLAN carrier in combating othe vessels or CSGs, the DF-21D is really off topic here.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm just gonna add my 2c to the ASHBM thing: I think a lot of media and some people have misinterpreted as some kind of silver bullet against CVBGs, when in reality all it does is extend a far larger area and range where a CVBG could potentially be threatened, in a way which bypasses the main strong point of CVBG defense; namely defense against air breathing threats, made up of SAMs, CAP, AEW. Having a missile that could cross over a thousand or two thousand kilometers within a time frame of a dozen or more minutes rather than multiple hours makes it a viable weapon, and a game changer in the sense that the potential area for danger which CVBGs have to contend with is now far larger than it would have been previously when only confronted with ASHMs and land based air power.

But the USN already has many means to work against ASHBM via attacking the kill chain's support elements, as well as ship and land based ABM elements, which while arguably far less mature and proven than their ability to deal with air breathing threats, is still a viable means of attacking an incoming missile itself. In a way, the game of ASHBM vs CVBG is no different to AShM vs CVBG — it is still one system against another, only it is played at a far greater distance: and for the country who wants to keep opfor CVBGs away from their shore, that is what counts and that is why ASHBM is a game changer.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Jeff Head said:
Actually the threat of the DF-21D is being dealt with on several very effective levels::

1) First, is discovering what on earth, if anything, it is currently capable of, or may some day be capable of. To this day there has been no life-fire, full-up, end to end operational test of the DF-21D against any moving (much less maneuvering) vessel at sea. Not one. Unil that occurs successfully, and on multiple occasions proving its effectiveness...it remains so much talk. Now, the US is taking the development of such a system seriously and projecting what it might be capable of (and doing so very liberally) in any case. To that end:

2) More and more AEGIS vessels are equipped with Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities and missiles. A system which has been, and continues to be, live ire tested, very rigorously.

3) The US is in the operational test pase of a new anti-missile defense chaff cloud made up of stealth filaments for its ship to get behind.

4) The US has very strong passive and active electronics counter measures, both ship borne and air borne to fry the electronics of incoming missiles.

5) The US will soon deploy rail gun and then laser anti-missile defenses on its Capitol vessels.

6) The US has some of the best CIWS systems, both missile and gun systems available.

7) The US has developed, and continues to develop the capability to attack the anti-access systems at all levels (meaning the surveillance, detection, acquisition, targeting, firing, and delivery systems that go into a complete system like the DF-21D) from outside of the range of those systems. Defeating or seriously degrading any one of those portions of the combined system is an effective mission kill of the system

So, the US is very well prepared to challenge and defeat such a system should it become necessary.

My own thoughts are these. Until the PRC actually conducts several full-up, live-fire tests of such a syste against targets at sea, proving its effectiveness...I consider that effort as much a Sun Tsu disinformation, mis-direction, and calculated bluff program as it is an actual, operational system.

Is the PRC working on it? Yes, absolutely. Is it a capable, operational, and fully tested system at this point? IMHO...hardly.

But the US is prepared for it or other such threats in any case.

In the mean time, except for such a system being used in concert with the activities of the PLAN carrier in combating othe vessels or CSGs, the DF-21D is really off topic here.
Click to expand...

You two should have hashed this out over your T-Bones the other night, but Equation, I'm going to go with Jeff's all up assessment, and detailed countermeasures, while I agree DF-21 has potential, I'm rather certain that the USN is planning for worst case scenario, we have lots of people and money invested in those carriers, and we are gonna defend them to the hilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top