PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

2 x STOBAR carriers would put the PLAN in a good position same as the RN

J15 and J15S is a fine aircraft although big large for my own liking

Escorted by scores of CG, DDG and FFG would be a awesome sight

Even better is the sea lift capacity with 4 x LPD is another major addition

A carrier strike group and a amphibious ready group in the making

asif iqbal said:

2 x STOBAR carriers would put the PLAN in a good position same as the RN

J15 and J15S is a fine aircraft although big large for my own liking

Escorted by scores of CG, DDG and FFG would be a awesome sight

Even better is the sea lift capacity with 4 x LPD is another major addition

A carrier strike group and a amphibious ready group in the making

Click to expand...

Many pundits pitch PLAN STOBAR carriers against US CVNs and find them wanting. But of course US CVNs are better, and the gap is wide. On the other hand, against other navies in the region, which is probably how PLAN would use them if they had to, they are king of the hill. Like Einstein said, it's all relative.

Blackstone said:

Many pundits pitch PLAN STOBAR carriers against US CVNs and find them wanting. But of course US CVNs are better, and the gap is wide. On the other hand, against other navies in the region, which is probably how PLAN would use them if they had to, they are king of the hill. Like Einstein said, it's all relative.

Click to expand...

Yeah but China already has the DF-21D and the DF-26 to handle any US carriers. The Chinese carrier is just the icing on the growing PLAN cake.

Equation said:

Yeah but China already has the DF-21D and the DF-26 to handle any US carriers. The Chinese carrier is just the icing on the growing PLAN cake.

Click to expand...

My friend...these systems are untested in real life scenarios.

The PLAN tests all of its equipment, and they do so rigorously...yet these major systems have not been. A static test out into the Gobi desert is one thing...a maritime test out at sea against a maneuvering ship is quite another. Get back to me when such a test is announced, documented, and observed.

And do not think it could happen without that. Such a test would have to be announced in a maritime environment so that other vessels would steer clear. The US announces these types of tests regularly...and the live fire tests China has done with its other weapons have also been.

And when they do, the monitoring systems various nations have in place will observe it...just as China observes what the US does.

One day we will hear of this level of testing...and it will be talked about at length. I look forward to that day...I have no doubts that the PLAN will ultimately do so. But even then, they are not a panacea...and the PLAN knows it.

As to the Chinese carriers. They are a HUGE step forward and they are very capable. True, not as capable as a US Carrier or its group...but this is a work in progress for the Chinese.

I admire and respect they way the PLAN is methodically going about it. I have no doubt that within a few years we will see the first PLAN CATOBAR carrier. And then one day after that, their own CATOBAR nuclear carrier.

Jeff Head said:

My friend...these systems are untested in real life scenarios.

The PLAN tests all of its equipment, and they do so rigorously...yet these major systems have not been. A static test out into the Gobi desert is one thing...a maritime test out at sea against a maneuvering ship is quite another. Get back to me when such a test is announced, documented, and observed.

And do not think it could happen without that. Such a test would have to be announced in a maritime environment so that other vessels would steer clear. The US announces these types of tests regularly...and the live fire tests China has done with its other weapons have also been.

And when they do, the monitoring systems various nations have in place will observe it...just as China observes what the US does.

One day we will hear of this level of testing...and it will be talked about at length. I look forward to that day...I have no doubts that the PLAN will ultimately do so. But even then, they are not a panacea...and the PLAN knows it.

Click to expand...

Jeff, if you were thinking Gobi test was purely static because the target grid was not moving, that may not be necessarily so.
There's a very simple logical explanation to it. If carrier's actual position,end point B is fixed, which is the test grid in Gobi, you can make carrier initial start point A and DF aim point C variable unknowns to stimulate as if B is moving.
Suppose a carrier can run 45 nm per hour, say it would take 5 mins to get the DF missile from launch site to carrier, carrier's initial position A would be anywhere in the 5 nm radius of B. So if DF was initially launched to a aim point C 10 nm away from B in opposite direction, and they still managed to hit the fixed grid B through mid flight course correction, I'd say it is as good as a test out in the sea. By moving C several times in relation to B, and still able to hit the target all the time, it was done as far as test is concerned.

Yvrch said:

Jeff, if you were thinking Gobi test was purely static because the target grid was not moving, that may not be necessarily so.
There's a very simple logical explanation to it. If carrier's actual position,end point B is fixed, which is the test grid in Gobi, you can make carrier initial start point A and DF aim point C variable unknowns to stimulate as if B is moving.
Suppose a carrier can run 45 nm per hour, say it would take 5 mins to get the DF missile from launch site to carrier, carrier's initial position A would be anywhere in the 5 nm radius of B. So if DF was initially launched to a aim point C 10 nm away from B in opposite direction, and they still managed to hit the fixed grid B through mid flight course correction, I'd say it is as good as a test out in the sea. By moving C several times in relation to B, and still able to hit the target all the time, it was done as far as test is concerned.

Click to expand...

there really is nothing that can simulate an US carrier group, which can frankly disappear in the large Pacific Ocean moving at 30 knots+. China really has nothing that can simulate the carrier group creating decoys, jamming sensors, spoofing Chinese satellites, cutting out transmissions to the degree that USN carrier group can. I really have very limited knowledge here, so will leave up to Jeff to correct the little I note here of the things at USN carrier group's disposal.

To add to Jeff and tphuang, a AShBM being able to hit a target accurately is one thing. Being able to do so without being shot down by a smaller missile and an aerial defence net is an entirely different matter.

The AshBM's don't have to be able to actually hit the CV's to have some effect. If they force carrier groups to regularly maneuver to avoid the possibility of being hit, it will slow down sortie rates a little. It doesn't seem like much, but when you add in the PLAN and PLANAF needing to be avoided or dealt with as well, it's clear CV's won't be able to operate against the Chinese with impunity.

There are also plenty of examples of CV's being sunk in war games, which shows their defenses are penetrable.

Some issues to consider,

1. The apogee of the trajectory of an ASBM is higher than the reach of a SM-3. And the chance of interception at the terminal stage, isn't any better than that of the ASBM hitting the target.

2. Assuming 500 ASBMs canbe produced at the cost of 1 nuclear carrier. Even with a success rate of 10 %, for a potential of 50 hits, this maybe enough to disable (mission dead) 25-50 major vessels including nuclear carriers.

3. On the one hand, there isn't any testing of an ABSM against a CG. On the other hand, there isn't any proof that a success rate of merely 10 % is impractical either. Arguments along this direction is fruitless so far.

4. But it is obvious that the economics is stacked against the CG. Even allowing for doubts, the objective of AA is practically achieved. And as such, the ABSM is already an effective deployment, before firing a first shot.

Qi_1528 said:

The AshBM's don't have to be able to actually hit the CV's to have some effect. If they force carrier groups to regularly maneuver to avoid the possibility of being hit, it will slow down sortie rates a little. It doesn't seem like much, but when you add in the PLAN and PLANAF needing to be avoided or dealt with as well, it's clear CV's won't be able to operate against the Chinese with impunity.

There are also plenty of examples of CV's being sunk in war games, which shows their defenses are penetrable.

Click to expand...

Except the defence isn't to move around (can't avoid a hypersonic missile that's terminal), but to shoot it down with a much smaller missile. That's not to say that AShBMs are worthless, but that they are not perfect sure fire counters. "Handle" is the wrong term.

Has an American Supercarrier ever been sunk in a war game?

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:

Some issues to consider,

1. The apogee of the trajectory of an ASBM is higher than the reach of a SM-3. And the chance of interception at the terminal stage, isn't any better than that of the ASBM hitting the target.

2. Assuming 500 ASBMs canbe produced at the cost of 1 nuclear carrier. Even with a success rate of 10 %, for a potential of 50 hits, this maybe enough to disable (mission dead) 25-50 major vessels including nuclear carriers.

3. On the one hand, there isn't any testing of an ABSM against a CG. On the other hand, there isn't any proof that a success rate of merely 10 % is impractical either. Arguments along this direction is fruitless so far.

4. But it is obvious that the economics is stacked against the CG. Even allowing for doubts, the objective of AA is practically achieved. And as such, the ABSM is already an effective deployment, before firing a first shot.

Click to expand...

If you can't conclude what the proper success rate is, you also can't conclude how the economics play out (it could be dismally low given unknowables like how a seeker plays against a jammer). You also have to consider that it's not as straightforward as a barrage of missile vs one carrier group. The missile launcher itself will be hunted if it's that effective.