PLAN container ship thread

[Temstar]

That’s certainly one possible application of this, but that does not mean it’s the only or even the primary application.

For this to be applicable in a post-apocalyptic world, you will need to have a significant quantity of these container modules already built and in secure, survivable storage to have any to haul out to build a scratch navy with.

But if China already has these built and in storage, there is nothing stopping them from taking them out for use now or in the near future, or to just massively ramp up production for current day usage.

Armed merchants don’t need to be able to go toe-to-toe with opfor naval warships to be useful, especially in China’s case where it has a massive and powerful standard navy. The armed merchants could easily act as arsenal ships and extended magazines for the PLAN’s existing fleets. The self defence capabilities are just to make sure they can deal with the odd leaker and can take care of themselves somewhat to not become a liability which would require significant PLAN assets to babysit and safeguard when in use.

Here Ayi and Xi Yazhou talking about the post-apocalyptic aspect:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you pointed out and they also spoke about in this video, as elements from this project becomes reality such as the EMCAT trucks, the post-apocalyptic origins of the project is becoming de-emphasised while people figure out more mundane uses for things that this project comes up with.

 

[AndrewS]

Ships can be burnt to the waterline too, you know. One or two ASMs would likely be able to do it with onboard fuel and combustibles if its on the smaller side.

The point is that a larger container ship (with only ~25 weapons containers) is mostly empty space.

So there aren't that many combustibles. Plus the fuel tanks are at the bottom or sides of the ship.

 

[AndrewS]

The reason it's mounted on a container ship is to push the defense line outwards from the coast. Jiangnan Shipyard will always be confined to the coast; container VLS trucks will never be able to escape the limitations of land. Look at what's happening in Russia right now, right? Faced with the potential damage from hundreds, even thousands of LRASMs, the cost of container ships is negligible compared to that.

Just think back to what slogans were on the containers. The Chinese nation must, and is, stepping out of its cradle on land. Until the PLAN is strong enough, this is a reasonable defensive tool that can alleviate pressure.

If you look at Jiangnan Shipyard, there is about 30km of land depth.
So land-based SAM launchers can effectively cover Jiangnan, and you wouldn't want SAMs further out, as they may be caught out of position.

Carrier groups operate distant AAW picket ships, because their primary job is to catch ISR aircraft who are trying to locate the carrier. But there won't be any incoming ISR aircraft for a fixed target on land like a shipyard.

 

[bsdnf]

Xi Yazhou's interpretation is essentially the same as what we discussed before;

He pointed out that, BIT doesn't have the power to unite so many military industrial enterprises. Instead, the higher-ups unite so many military industrial enterprises to develop reserve plans for post-apocalyptic scenarios, and then hand over some publicly available plans that can be adapted to less extreme situations to BIT for them to develop.

Container ship project is a piece of the puzzle. Beyond the post-apocalyptic scene of the burning Yangtze River, its potential applications in large-scale non-nuclear conventional warfare—such as the maritime VLS platforms and armed merchant ships we discussed earlier.

Taking the ultra-cheap rocket capable of launching 1000 rockets a year as another example, it's essentially an ICBM/rocket plan for a post-apocalyptic scenario.

However, in a large-scale conventional war, such as when both sides destroy a large number of each other's satellites, or even in extreme non-wartime situations, such as when Starship becomes readily available and the US quickly launches tens of thousands of satellites annually to seize all spectrum orbits, and given that China's space program lacks reusable rockets, this cheap rocket could serve as a safety net under national mobilization.

Even without a Starlink breakthrough, it can serve as a technological reserve, exploring supply chains and low-cost component solutions for future reusable rockets.

 

[para80]

A plausible assessment IMO. People continue to underestimate some of the industrial and corporate dynamics around pitching new products for defence roles, in China and elsewhere. Too much emphasis on top down "grand strategy" sort of thinking, not enough appreciation for institutional dynamics.

 

[Blitzo]

A plausible assessment IMO. People continue to underestimate some of the industrial and corporate dynamics around pitching new products for defence roles, in China and elsewhere. Too much emphasis on top down "grand strategy" sort of thinking, not enough appreciation for institutional dynamics.

In this case it is the opposite (unless I've missed your meaning) -- i.e.: this concept was more "top down" to organize the various industries to explore this concept for what is decidedly a rather "out there" and "grand strategy-esque" concept.

 

[para80]

Right. Yeah my interpretation (which may be wrong) is that instead of clear strategic guidance and fleshed out CONOPS the companies in essence try to read the tea leaves on vague notions communicated to them. But I may misjudge the level of "competition" between various MIC participants using their allocated budgets, and its more of a one way street from the top to the effect of "do something" and they end up doing the sorts of things we see.

 

[Blitzo]

Right. Yeah my interpretation (which may be wrong) is that instead of clear strategic guidance and fleshed out CONOPS the companies in essence try to read the tea leaves on vague notions communicated to them. But I may misjudge the level of "competition" between various MIC participants using their allocated budgets, and its more of a one way street from the top to the effect of "do something" and they end up doing the sorts of things we see.

I see.

My understanding of it, is that this specific concept/exploration of feasibility is actually an example of top down direction to the various industries and institutes, and that this concept probably wouldn't have emerged without said top down guidance asking them to coordinate and cooperate to achieve something specific.

That is to say -- this concept is actually a good example of "top down guidance" and "concept driven by high level geostrategic considerations of grand strategy futures".


(Whether or not it has a military specific conops for the near future is somewhat unimportant)