PLAN ASW Capability

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
This is a civilian ship built for scientific research.
Yes, but clearly it’s military applications are obvious? Civil-military fusion is the strategy and maybe the PLAN is not ready to show their military versions yet.

China will have hundreds of science vessels all feeding data back to the AI’s at home, you don’t think they are using it to look for nuclear subs?

Not to mentions the tens of thousands of large militia ships which could deploy the same systems as this ship.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
A timely reminder on the importance of having strong and effective ASW capabilities, especially for the protection of large surface warships on the high seas.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Imagine having an enemy submarine sticking right underneath your aircraft carrier for more than an hour without your escorting ships even discovering that the enemy submarine even existed. Other than the enmy submarine being able to torpedo your carrier from a much closer distance, having an enemy special mission submarine attaching timed/remotely detonated limpet mines underneath the hull of the carrier is also a big possibility.

Though, I wouldn't be shocked if similar stories of American or British submarines having done the same thing with the PLA Navy as late as the early 2010s came out - Because Chinese ASW capabilities are indeed sh1tty back then.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
A timely reminder on the importance of having strong and effective ASW capabilities, especially for the protection of large surface warships on the high seas.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Imagine having an enemy submarine sticking right underneath your aircraft carrier for more than an hour without your escorting ships even discovering that the enemy submarine even existed. Other than the enmy submarine being able to torpedo your carrier from a much closer distance, having an enemy special mission submarine attaching timed/remotely detonated limpet mines underneath the hull of the carrier is also a big possibility.

Though, I wouldn't be shocked if similar stories of American or British submarines having done the same thing with the PLA Navy as late as the early 2010s came out - Because Chinese ASW capabilities are indeed sh1tty back then.
I am surprised the carrier was cruising at just around 10-12 knots for so long. The submarine would not be able to operate the periscope underwater at higher speeds without risking flooding or the periscope breaking off.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I got pointed to this video from a fellow member who understands ASW much better than me
Anyhow, a lot of nice video from inside the aircraft. They didn't reveal anything major that my untrained eyes can spot, but I do have some thoughts.
Its interior looks more spacious than I expected, the catering area look almost like a commercial airliner cabin. Food quality also looks good, seems like they even have a bunk bed in there, lol. Looks like they put a lot of thought into crew comfort. That seems like a common theme with PLAN in the recent years
 

montyp165

Senior Member
I got pointed to this video from a fellow member who understands ASW much better than me
Anyhow, a lot of nice video from inside the aircraft. They didn't reveal anything major that my untrained eyes can spot, but I do have some thoughts.
Its interior looks more spacious than I expected, the catering area look almost like a commercial airliner cabin. Food quality also looks good, seems like they even have a bunk bed in there, lol. Looks like they put a lot of thought into crew comfort. That seems like a common theme with PLAN in the recent years
This doesn't surprise me, as even back in the day the PLA placed strong emphasis on things such as good food and morale for the troops, and the Chinese approach to logistics more closely resembles the US approach than the Soviet one, too.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
This doesn't surprise me, as even back in the day the PLA placed strong emphasis on things such as good food and morale for the troops, and the Chinese approach to logistics more closely resembles the US approach than the Soviet one, too.
Not US or Soviet approach. China has its own approach to logistics which might surprise people that think China only copies US or Russia. But it's easy to understand when you think about requirements and existing capability.

US approach is for fighting expeditionary wars of choice far from home with low losses. Irrelevant for China. Their system breaks down when conflicts drag on and when losses are high. See what happened in Vietnam or happening to their supplies in Ukraine.

Soviet approach is for fighting a wide front, expeditionary ground war on its own border. Relevant for China in the past, mostly irrelevant now. There's a reason why Russia doesn't bother much with maintenance - if the goal is to win WW3, wtf you need 5 year maintenance for? The tank either doesn't survive week 1 or you've already won.

Both US and Russians have the logistical question of deploying forces in their own underdeveloped country with low population density. Underdeveloped meaning, there's lots of land that is just wilderness and cannot be used for sustaining own forces. Examples include Siberia, Midwest, etc. Even in Ukraine, notice how there's often just nothing but wild forest and fields in tons of places? And that was the most developed part of the USSR. Many roads in Ukraine - just like in the US and Russia - are 2 or 4 lane rural highways with empty stretches of 100-200 km of wilderness between small rudimentary rest stops. The distance between these rural highways can be 100's of km. There's no other roads linking other points, it's just wilderness in between. Just look at an interstate highway map of the US or a federal highway map of Russia. That means tons of bottlenecks for internal transport.

China has the huge advantage of most of the country being populated and being able to use internal civilian transport to move forces around. There's a village every 10 km or so, a dense network of intervillage rural highways, in addition to HSR, freight rail, expressway, etc That's why many Chinese logistical innovations work - lots of warehouses, stockpiles, fast inter-stockpile transport, etc.
 

montyp165

Senior Member
Not US or Soviet approach. China has its own approach to logistics which might surprise people that think China only copies US or Russia. But it's easy to understand when you think about requirements and existing capability.

US approach is for fighting expeditionary wars of choice far from home with low losses. Irrelevant for China. Their system breaks down when conflicts drag on and when losses are high. See what happened in Vietnam or happening to their supplies in Ukraine.

Soviet approach is for fighting a wide front, expeditionary ground war on its own border. Relevant for China in the past, mostly irrelevant now. There's a reason why Russia doesn't bother much with maintenance - if the goal is to win WW3, wtf you need 5 year maintenance for? The tank either doesn't survive week 1 or you've already won.

Both US and Russians have the logistical question of deploying forces in their own underdeveloped country with low population density. Underdeveloped meaning, there's lots of land that is just wilderness and cannot be used for sustaining own forces. Examples include Siberia, Midwest, etc. Even in Ukraine, notice how there's often just nothing but wild forest and fields in tons of places? And that was the most developed part of the USSR. Many roads in Ukraine - just like in the US and Russia - are 2 or 4 lane rural highways with empty stretches of 100-200 km of wilderness between small rudimentary rest stops. The distance between these rural highways can be 100's of km. There's no other roads linking other points, it's just wilderness in between. Just look at an interstate highway map of the US or a federal highway map of Russia. That means tons of bottlenecks for internal transport.

China has the huge advantage of most of the country being populated and being able to use internal civilian transport to move forces around. There's a village every 10 km or so, a dense network of intervillage rural highways, in addition to HSR, freight rail, expressway, etc That's why many Chinese logistical innovations work - lots of warehouses, stockpiles, fast inter-stockpile transport, etc.
The thing is also that Chinese logistics has developed to such a point that even if they had to build up a base of operations from scratch in a distant location they absolutely can pull it off, the transport of SAMs to Serbia is but a small fraction of that capability in practice.
 
Top