Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Last Page of Previous Thread --->
Link to previous thread

Starting a new thread, as the old one was locked.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

China’s Underwater Threat
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... HE.twitter
16 Feb 2021

By Lt Gen PC Katoch (Retd)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

China increases production of AIP Submarines with massive new shipyard
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -shipyard/
16 Feb 2021
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

First image of China's new nuclear submarine under construction
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto
01 Feb 2021
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

PLAAF is starting to produce better trained fighter pilots and at a faster rate
http://alert5.com/2021/02/17/plaaf-is-s ... ster-rate/
17 Feb 2021
The service took steps to shorten its training program by cutting it from ten to seven or eight years.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

Rakesh wrote:Starting a new thread, as the old one was locked.
Please add link to old one
asgkhan
BRFite
Posts: 1834
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 17:19
Location: Helping BRF research how to seduce somali women

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by asgkhan »

What a lost opportunity as a landmass surrounded by water on 3 sides, we dont have a similar aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_AG600

Dont click on haram link https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202102/1215791.shtml
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

jamwal wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Starting a new thread, as the old one was locked.
Please add link to old one
Done.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1714
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Lisa »

More than anything, this previously unreported submarine is a sign of the changing times. April 1st 2021 will go down in history as the start of a new era in submarines.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

Lisa wrote:
More than anything, this previously unreported submarine is a sign of the changing times. April 1st 2021 will go down in history as the start of a new era in submarines.
:)

Here is the original from the same guy
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

Fiscal Year 2022 Priorities and Posture of the United States Space Command
Beijing actively seeks space superiority through space and space attack systems. One notable object is the Shijian-17, a Chinese satellite with a robotic arm. Space-based robotic arm technology could be used in a future system for grappling other satellites.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

China is rotating its LAC divisions
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 91300?s=20
Report: Chinese PLA is rotating troops deployed in occupied Aksai Chin.
Two divisions (4th & 6th divs) that were deployed along LAC in 2020 have been replaced with two fresh divisions (8th motorized div & 11th highland div).
If you followed the previous thread these are the only other full divisions in PLA and usually based in Xinjiang.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 03428?s=20 ---> CCP censors delete all videos and posts from Chinese SM reporting on a fatal mid-air collision of two China PLA helicopters.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 70596?s=20 ---> Happened couple of days back but coward Chinese regime has not found the guts to announce it in public.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 28258?s=20 ---> Picture of the wreckage after mid-air collision of two PLA military helicopters in Anhui:

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

---POST DELETED---
Last edited by Rakesh on 30 Jun 2021 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Do not post pictures without a link. Provide source of images.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

China’s New Super Carrier: How It Compares To The US Navy’s Ford Class

A new aircraft carrier, currently under construction in Shanghai, is the most visible sign of China's rapidly expanding navy. It is larger than China's current two carriers and differs in key aspects. But the natural comparison is to the U.S. Navy's latest carriers, the Ford Class.
Image
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Would generating enough power for 3 EM catapults be a challenge in the absence of nuclear propulsion?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Depends on how efficient and powerful their EM catapults are. If you go by what General Atomics and US Navy determined for its study to support the UK Carrier decision, the answer on fitting EM catapults (GA's at the time offering) to a non CVN was a yes. But I am sure, if the Chinese do embark on the EM as is being claimed, then they will run into issues with integration and testing. They are packing a fair bit into this compared to their other two carriers and we don't know what successes and failures they've had in shore based catapult testing. If they launch it next year then we should expect some dead-load testing by 2023 so I think that will give away whether they've put EM or steam catapults on it.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

Going by these measurements from this watcher:
https://mobile.twitter.com/horobeyo/sta ... 9345508352

The Type 003 might be closer to the Ford's displacement than the Kitty Hawk's -- it is a bit shorter but also wider so the deck area at least might be as big or bigger than the Ford:
Image

So for a conventional powered vessel, it seems to be taxing the propulsion system at a pretty unprecedented level. Kitty Hawk at 80K tons was conventional but used steam cats. It makes more sense for them to model on the Kitty Hawk for a first try at a CATOBAR to reduce risks.

But all the pundits -- watchers and fanboys alike -- are predicting EMALS. Actually, the PLAN had no announcement either way from what I read -- only that the Type 003 will have cats and we know they've tested both steam and EM from satellite and other sources. It will break a lot of egos if it turns out to be steam.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

If they go down the road of EMALS, then I can confidently say that this vessel would require nearly a decade of rigorous testing before it goes out on a meaningful operational cruise. The system, as was explained recently at a USNA virtual-event that I attended, doesn't go down gracefully or offer limited capability with most down-times being complete shutdowns or unsafe to operate events (though they are much rarer with MTBF significantly higher than older steam systems aboard legacy CVN's). For reference, the Ford would have spent 6.5 years testing all its new gear prior to first deployment and that's with many orders of magnitude of experience with carrier aviation, carriers at sea, and the advanced technologies in question (EMALS, AAG, EM elevators, Solid state dual band array etc etc ). That's not bad given its a first-in class of what will be a 8-10 ship program, but it still puts things in context. You can take shortcuts with things you understand, but things that are completely new, and first-of-kind, require a lot more effort to validate and put in the hands of the operators. While you can build it up fast you cannot magically avoid the learning curve, and the testing required to fully operationalize cutting edge technologies that have never been used in this application.

There is simply no other way out besides the time consuming --Test--Discover--Correct--Test loop. And if they can't quite get EMALS to work as desired, then they will have to go back to design because you just can't rip it out and put steam catapults in there easily. While time will tell, they may have bitten off more than they can chew with this one though the opaque nature of their defense modernization (relying on mostly amateur fanboys sifting through Chinese social media and throwing out guesswork to see what sticks..) may keep some of the things well hidden for quite a while.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

^^^ Agree, Brar ji. I think whatever they use, they will spend a decade or more getting it to meaningful operations. They've never operated a catapult of any sort before and here they must install and wring out a system whether steam or EM that they also built themselves with no practical experience (no help possible from Russia in this field.)

But my wondering of steam or EM is more for the practical question of whether it is even possible run EMALS on a conventionally powered CV and a pretty big one at that. It might HAVE to be steam despite all the fanboys are claiming EMALS because of physical constraints of a conventional vessel.

They've certainly taken a big bite with a first CATOBAR carrier of this size irregardless of cat type. Our navy is being refused on a much smaller carrier in the Vishal.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

This thing looks smaller than the Ford but bigger than the Nimitz -- by deck area anyways. Size is unprecedented for a conventional carrier. We'll see if it is a proper choice. It would take an inordinate amount of effort just to supply it with fuel for any lengthy deployment. If EMALS, the integrated electric propulsion comes into play and they have never deployed an IEP warship that we know about.

First time catapults and first time IEP in a larger conventional hull than anyone else had done. High risk for high ambitions. They might be wringing things out for decades.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA/ ... 4975977475

Rick Joe
@RickJoe_PLA
Excellent working comparison estimates of 003 deck area, via 谈书xx, Weibo.

Preliminary of course, but certainly within reason that 003's deck area could slightly exceed Nimitz...

(Left to right)
Pic 1: 003, Ford, Nimitz, Kitty Hawk
Pic 2: 003, Ford, Queen Elizabeth, Liaoning

Image

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

A CVN dedicates nearly 100% of its fuel to the aviation arm, and also has a larger magazine. Let's talk about comparing to legacy conventional or CVN's when we know A) Magazine capacity, B ) Aviation Fuel capacity (for comparison, most if not all of the Ford's 3+ Million gallons of fuel is available to its air-wing).

Great if you can park a lot of aircraft on the deck, but you do have to arm them and fuel them for them to be useful so the limiter to converting # of aircraft to multi-mission sorties is going to be those things. China does not seem to have a COD platform either so it will have to carry most of the stuff on the carrier. The Chinese social media watchers turned "China-Analysts" usually don't focus on these details which are what "make" an effective carrier in the first place (the point isn't to build a ship but to field a multi-mission aviation detachment that can go out and perform missions far away from shore). An important O metric here is the number of days of a given sustained sortie rate the ship can support without requiring lots of COD, needing additional fuel or to get into port to replenish the magazine. A lot of it will be based on what type of aircraft China puts on these, their technical characteristics and performance. But it will struggle to get to the Nimitz level of sustained SGR and ops w/o replenishment. That's primarily because they haven't done this enough so are unlikely to have made a lot of decisions based on experience and knowledge of needing to generate carrier sorties, and most importantly because they are producing a conventional carrier (for now).

Image
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Prasad »

There are a few things that the PLAN doesn't have to do though. They don't have to sail halfway around the world. So resupply is almost always available at close quarters during operation. I don't remember if we've seen a Greyhound equivalent but wouldn't put it past them to employ one given they are going to have a E-2 equivalent for carrier awacs requirements.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

A carrier battle group, in its very essence, is designed to be self sustaining as best as possible. The Amreekis have been doing it for decades and have the sufficient skill set, experience and platforms to back that up. It is for this very reason that a US Navy CBG is feared among her enemies. She is nearly invincible and would take a significant amount of resources to tie her down.

This "terracotta" navy of theirs, is nowhere close. So while they have the luxury of resupply, by being close to shore supply bases, that defeats the purpose of having an aircraft carrier which is designed to be global and expeditionary in nature. In a full scale war against the USN, their much hyped CBG would not last even a day in the Pacific Ocean. Bullying smaller states in the South China is the best they can accomplish at present.

And by being close to shore, they are severely limiting their CBG's biggest advantage - the open sea, where detection is much harder. It is for this very reason that the former CNS, Admiral Sunil Lanba, said that in the Indian Ocean...the Indian Navy holds the advantage vis-a-viv the PLAN. They are keenly aware of this and would dare not bring their CBG into India's backyard, in a time of war.

The Humiliation & Shame (also known on BRF as Honor & Dignity) in losing their CBG would be too much for the Han people to bear. This is what lying to your people does. Wolf Warriors only live in the realm of Han Diplomats. Their bark is worse than their bite. Brar makes a good point in his post above and I reproduce here below...
brar_w wrote:The Chinese social media watchers turned "China-Analysts" usually don't focus on these details which are what "make" an effective carrier in the first place (the point isn't to build a ship but to field a multi-mission aviation detachment that can go out and perform missions far away from shore).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

The weight of experience in argument that the PLAN will face difficulty in fielding effective carrier force. It makes sense at one level.

However, at a different level lies the ability of the PRC to do basic research.

Such as, how many sorties does it take for the fuel supply to reduce to a point where it is no longer able to sustain any kind of operations?

Same question regarding ammunition.

If the operating location is close to shore then the resupply equation is considerably simplified.

Even if the ship is operating far from shore and against near peers. The availability of future friendly bases at least in the Indian Ocean will make it easier for them to conduct offensive operations.

In this scenario. If the PRC takes the initiative they can do a lot of damage to Indian Navy. Depending on the degree of success enjoyed by the PLAN in such an operation. They might just be able to knock the IN out. Even if an Indian reaction in that case wiped out the concerned task force.

But those Indian forces would have to be moved out from a different theatre. Reducing availability of forces against the PRC in Tibetan theatre of operations for the duration of the operations against the PLAN.

If PLAN has to operate closer to home as a sort of extension of tactical airpower but within the AA/AD bubble. Then the requirement to fight with khan's ships in open water no longer exists.

All this is not to say that PLAN are 10 foot tall. But they are not helpless babes in the ocean as well.

What I am saying is that Indian Naval and Air Power has to grow significantly.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

Pratyush wrote: All this is not to say that PLAN are 10 foot tall. But they are not helpless babes in the ocean as well.

What I am saying is that Indian Naval and Air Power has to grow significantly.
The US paints them about 10 foot tall to drive budgets and change. They've changed from a terrorist-fighting COIN heavy force back to a peer power focused force in the last five years mainly because of Cheen. They are leaving Afghanistan as we speak.

That is what Cheen is doing with the US too. They are using the US as an excuse to build out things they never had before -- the space station, fully domestic silicon chip supply chain, GPS, their carrier program ...

The carriers will create a necessity in developing a lot of things like the carrier-based AWACS, COD and ASW we talked about here:
Fear and desire can drive change. They can be made into virtues.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:In this scenario. If the PRC takes the initiative they can do a lot of damage to Indian Navy. Depending on the degree of success enjoyed by the PLAN in such an operation. They might just be able to knock the IN out. Even if an Indian reaction in that case wiped out the concerned task force.
Therein lies the rub. How much "damage" is the PLAN willing to absorb to "knock" the IN out?

If the concerned task force is wiped out, how many more resources can they bring to that theatre to finish the job?

How do we define or quantify a knock out against the IN? Losing a carrier? A battle group? The entire sub fleet? The naval air arm?

How many of these above resources were put into play to wipe out the "concerned" task force?

These scenarios can be gamed via the US. They lose an entire CBG, they have 10 others waiting in the wings. And in the words of the Stable Genius, that enemy will THEN face a fire & fury that they have never experienced before. If the PLAN loses a CBG, how many more are they willing to risk to lose? Playing a game of battleship does not count for being a naval power.

You must have the experience to back that up. What do they have exactly?
Pratyush wrote:What I am saying is that Indian Naval and Air Power has to grow significantly.
Fully agree and well said. +108 to you.

I only hope that it grows significantly by investing our resources into local maal and not investing it in other countries. That would defeat the whole point of significant growth and puts that very "mortgaged" growth into the hands of a foreign power.

Not directed at you Saar, but in the midst of dhoti shivering...let us not lose the bigger picture. I envy the Han people, because they do it on their own and that is because they have no other choice. And that is admirable. Unfortunately, we in India want to do the opposite. Import, import and even more import. And that is because we have a choice.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/141 ... 60032?s=20 ---> Many have realized this, many have not. But India is facing its single greatest threat since Independence - Xi's China. All Hindu-Muslim, BJP-Congress, Chor-Polis games are inconsequential now. Alliances will help, but a whole of nation approach is needed.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Prasad wrote:There are a few things that the PLAN doesn't have to do though. They don't have to sail halfway around the world. So resupply is almost always available at close quarters during operation. I don't remember if we've seen a Greyhound equivalent but wouldn't put it past them to employ one given they are going to have a E-2 equivalent for carrier awacs requirements.
Good point but I would seriously question the assumption that they don't plan on long distance power projection for their CBG, particularly when they are building up a 80k+ ton CATOBAR, with a support group consisting of 13K ton Destroyers and other support vessels. Clearly, there is a portion of their Navy that is designed or even optimized for operations closer to the mainland to support their political ambitions (the frigate and corvette force) but if you look at the Type 03 carrier, and the large combatants, and the amphibious force..etc-- That (combination) is something you build up for long distance power projection. And they have an advanced bomber being developed that will support this fleet. That also supports their ambitions to set up foreign bases in Africa and elsewhere. While the final judgement will have to wait, but I think if they are successful with the Type 003 design, they will probably produce at a minimum 5 or so of them over the next 20 or so years and you don't really need to do that to hang out in your near abroad. In fact, for that need they would be better off producing different type of vessels in higher numbers to basically keep everyone (basically US and Japan) away for Taiwan like scenarios..A large CBG with a medium-large air-wing is an offensive, and not a defensive, investment into force projection (that's where the investment into AEW, COD, fixed wing carrier based ASW pays off).
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

Clearly we have to take steps to counter them but it is not to copy them. Saying Type 50 and P28 vessels are the same.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

brar_w wrote:
Prasad wrote:There are a few things that the PLAN doesn't have to do though. They don't have to sail halfway around the world. So resupply is almost always available at close quarters during operation. I don't remember if we've seen a Greyhound equivalent but wouldn't put it past them to employ one given they are going to have a E-2 equivalent for carrier awacs requirements.
Good point but I would seriously question the assumption that they don't plan on long distance power projection for their CBG, particularly when they are building up a 80k+ ton CATOBAR, with a support group consisting of 13K ton Destroyers and other support vessels. Clearly, there is a portion of their Navy that is designed or even optimized for operations closer to the mainland to support their political ambitions (the frigate and corvette force) but if you look at the Type 03 carrier, and the large combatants, and the amphibious force..etc-- That (combination) is something you build up for long distance power projection. And they have an advanced bomber being developed that will support this fleet. That also supports their ambitions to set up foreign bases in Africa and elsewhere. While the final judgement will have to wait, but I think if they are successful with the Type 003 design, they will probably produce at a minimum 5 or so of them over the next 20 or so years and you don't really need to do that to hang out in your near abroad. In fact, for that need they would be better off producing different type of vessels in higher numbers to basically keep everyone (basically US and Japan) away for Taiwan like scenarios..A large CBG with a medium-large air-wing is an offensive, and not a defensive, investment into force projection (that's where the investment into AEW, COD, fixed wing carrier based ASW pays off).
Long distance for cheen might mean Japan or the Philippines. It is a matter of perspective. The US has no rivals in the Western hemisphere so we are use to them deploying on the other side of the world. Cheen has the USN on her doorstep.

I think they will try to saturate their near seas with battle groups centered around carriers as the visible components while that new SSN factory will be pumping out the invisible ones. The visible component is needed to intimidate their neighbors -- you can't impress countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan with anything less than carriers -- into allowing them to sail and establish themselves where ever they want. They are peace time gray zone tools. The SSNs are insurance for actual warfare with the USN.

Yes, I think they'll build multiple ACs because of the infrastructure they've established, especially the dedicated carrier aviation academy where they are recruiting high school graduates. Together with the testing facilities and the fact they have had carriers built at two shipyards, it is obvious that the footprint of this program is major not just a minor component (like it is for the Russians.)

The Type 003 is being built in Shanghai but Dalian rebuilt the Varyag and the 002. Their CVNs might come out of there while CVs continue from Shanghai.

They'll venture a CBG now and then into the IOR for flag showing or gray zone endeavors but I doubt they intend to fight a kinetic war with one there. Unlikely they'll think they have a chance not only against the teeth of the IN but also the US 6th Fleet. If they do then the better for us. But I think their carrier program is rooted in their near seas. You can see the constant patrols of their two STOBARS in the SCS (and going through the Taiwan Strait to do them.)
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Prasad »

If they have a big enough fleet in the near future, within say 10 years, we will see regular CBG patrols upto Djibouti like their subs do today.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Paul »

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

Prasad wrote:If they have a big enough fleet in the near future, within say 10 years, we will see regular CBG patrols upto Djibouti like their subs do today.
We'll see forays but nothing permanent until they can saturate their near seas which are life and death to them.

A chini CBG in the IOR would be more like a hostage than a combatant if war ever breaks out. They know this. They aren't paki enamored of being a "martial" race. Cheen will avoid kinetic warfare at all cost (like it had for 40 years) because its main advantage is capacity to build overwhelming amount of vehicles to create fait acccompli in grey zones amd global commons during peace time.

If we understand and see this clearly then instead of importing Rafales, Scorpenes, T90s, etc. for immediate kinetic warfare with Cheen we would be investing more in our MIC to fight the real threat from Cheen which is the industrial capability/capacity competition. It would make sense then to buy the Arjun in numbers, to buy a few squadrons of NLCA, to supply the IN helo requirement with HAL rotary (the most successful division we ever created) and to build that 65K tons CATOBAR. But the RFIs for the FRCV, P75i, 110 Navy utility helos programs tell me we are fixated on using the foreign market yet again to get us quickest to the kinetic solutions instead of investing in the long term solution which is the MIC.

We can use Cheen as a challenge to develop our industrial might instead of as an excuse to import. We can use this Type 003 as a reason to build the IN's CATOBAR. To explore our catapults. Our carrier AEW. To imagine the TEDBF flying with full load and fighting at full capacity instead of being limited by a ski jump.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:The visible component is needed to intimidate their neighbors -- you can't impress countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan with anything less than carriers -- into allowing them to sail and establish themselves where ever they want. They are peace time gray zone tools. The SSNs are insurance for actual warfare with the USN.
It is going to be difficult to "intimidate" most of the larger players in the western pacific with a carrier group. Particularly Japan and South Korea. For one, Japan has two Izumo class vessels that it will convert to AC's, with stealth strike fighters being operated off of it. Japan has AEGIS ships that will serve as very capable escorts with higher quality, and better tested stuff on them than what the Chinese can muster on its destroyers, at least in the short-medium term. Secondly, there is a US CVN that is permanently based in Yokosuka which deploys for 6-8 months in a year. There are even talks of a long term permanent basing of a second US CVN out of Japan. Between these 3 vessels (currently there or being prepared), and additional US CVN's that routinely spend months in the Pacific, there will be an AC group permanently deployed around Japan year round so at best China can hope to do in the near-mid term is to try to match that cadence though it will be difficult to do that and other things particularly with the learning curve. Same for South Korea which is building up a carrier, and will be routinely operating with a USN CVN and surface combatants in the region. One of the consequences of Chinese naval expansion has been the proliferation of aircraft carriers in the region (some may remember all the talk about carriers becoming obsolete because of "carrier killers" :D ) with the two Japanese, future Korean CVX, and IAC-1. Plus the up-fitted Lightning Carriers that the USMC will occasionally sail through the region. Carriers are not just peace time gray zone tools. They are one of the most flexible wartime options an armed force can have. It is a floating air-wing sized air-base, that can be pre positioned, and moved hundreds of km's overnight. And one that can do multiple missions including fixed wing ASW if required. While it is a good power projection symbol, during war it offers the flexibility that no other surface combatant does. And that, ultimately, is what your potential adversaries have to account for given the capabilities it brings to naval warfare and as a means to add strike capability on land.
Prasad wrote:If they have a big enough fleet in the near future, within say 10 years, we will see regular CBG patrols upto Djibouti like their subs do today.
Yes and I think we will see a preview to that ahead of 10 years as they build up knowledge, doctrine, and experience in doing this. As I said, you don't build an 80k+ CATOBAR with fixed wing AEW for short range work where shore based support can assist. It is there to go far away from the mainland and stay and operate for prolonged period of time. The type of support vessels they've build, or planned to build is consistent with that. For now they will be limits to this because they haven't launched the first one yet and they will have a learning curve, and need time to build up a force (1 large carrier every five years is probably a good assumption).
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Jul 2021 19:14, edited 2 times in total.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by VinodTK »

President Xi promotes PLA Commander overseeing India border to rank of General
Chinese President Xi Jinping has promoted Xu Qiling, Commander of the People's Liberation Army’s Western Theatre Command which oversees the borders with India, to the rank of a General, amid the continued standoff along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

Xi, who is also Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) - the overall high command of the PLA, promoted 58-year-old Xu to the rank of General - the highest rank for officers in active service in China.

The other officers who were promoted to the rank of General included Commander of the Southern Theatre Command Wang Xiubin, Commander of the PLA Army Liu Zhenli, and Commander of the PLA Strategic Support (Missile) Force Ju Qiansheng, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.
:
:
:
:
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:The visible component is needed to intimidate their neighbors -- you can't impress countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan with anything less than carriers -- into allowing them to sail and establish themselves where ever they want. They are peace time gray zone tools. The SSNs are insurance for actual warfare with the USN.
It is going to be difficult to "intimidate" most of the larger players in the western pacific with a carrier group. Particularly Japan and South Korea. For one, Japan has two Izumo class vessels that it will convert to AC's, with stealth strike fighters being operated off of it. Japan has AEGIS ships that will serve as very capable escorts with higher quality, and better tested stuff on them than what the Chinese can muster on its destroyers, at least in the short-medium term. Secondly, there is a US CVN that is permanently based in Yokosuka which deploys for 6-8 months in a year. There are even talks of a long term permanent basing of a second US CVN out of Japan. Between these 3 vessels (currently there or being prepared), and additional US CVN's that routinely spend months in the Pacific, there will be an AC group permanently deployed around Japan year round so at best China can hope to do in the near-mid term is to try to match that cadence though it will be difficult to do that and other things particularly with the learning curve. Same for South Korea which is building up a carrier, and will be routinely operating with a USN CVN and surface combatants in the region. One of the consequences of Chinese naval expansion has been the proliferation of aircraft carriers in the region (some may remember all the talk about carriers becoming obsolete because of "carrier killers" :D ) with the two Japanese, future Korean CVX, and IAC-1. Plus the up-fitted Lightning Carriers that the USMC will occasionally sail through the region. Carriers are not just peace time gray zone tools. They are one of the most flexible wartime options an armed force can have. It is a floating air-wing sized air-base, that can be pre positioned, and moved hundreds of km's overnight. And one that can do multiple missions including fixed wing ASW if required. While it is a good power projection symbol, during war it offers the flexibility that no other surface combatant does. And that, ultimately, is what your potential adversaries have to account for given the capabilities it brings to naval warfare and as a means to add strike capability on land.
Yes, it is obvious that the carriers are flexible weapon platforms but they are also the (most) visible component of power that a SSN can't be. With carriers of the USN and its allies off of Cheen seaboard, the chinis will need to match them or risk losing control (in both fact and perception) of their own waters. Their crash course in carriers came after the US sent CBGs down Taiwan Strait in the 1990s, telling them and the rest of Asia in no uncertain terms that the US controls these waters -- up to Chinese shorelines.

As you said, with one permanent US carrier in Japan, others passing through for exercise, the gators and the Japanese and Korean carriers, the chinis would need to put up four or five carriers of their own just to match up (on the perception angle.)

The one in service, one in training and one in maintenance model of carrier deployment cycle means even when the chinis reach 10 carriers, they'll have only about three ready at any given time. Though the carriers in training can be counted for perception since they will train in the same seas.

IMHO, I see the PLAN deploying its carriers mainly in waters close to home -- waters crowded with US-allied vessels -- even if it ever reaches 10. There'll be an anti-piracy or flag-showing flag-show trip to the IOR and beyond but nothing permanent because of the situation on their front door.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

More than a bit worrisome if true. They have or at least been experimenting with autonomous hunter-killers for decades. They would be the last people on earth with any ethical qualms over deploying such things.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... nes-dating
China reveals secret programme of unmanned drone submarines dating back to 1990s

* Drone submarine test-fired in Taiwan Strait without human input, declassified details suggest

*Testing showed it could detect a mock craft, use artificial intelligence to identify its origin, and hit it with a torpedo


Stephen Chen in Beijing
Published: 11:00am, 8 Jul, 2021


A research team in China has unveiled an underwater drone that can recognise, follow and attack an enemy submarine without human instruction.

The secret project, funded by the military, was partially declassified last week with the publication of a paper that gave a rare glimpse into a field test of the unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), seemingly in the Taiwan Strait, more than a decade ago.

...

These robotic drones are now working mostly individually, but with technological upgrades could patrol in packs, according to Professor Liang Guolong and colleagues from Harbin Engineering University, China’s top submarine research institute.

...

Although the researchers did not give a precise location, partial coordinates from a map in their paper suggested that they dropped an unmanned submarine off the coast of the eastern province of Fujian, in or near the Taiwan Strait.

The drone was programmed to patrol about 10 metres below the surface following a predetermined route.
At another location, the researchers deployed a mock craft that could replicate the noise of a submarine, and the drone switched to combat mode as soon as its sonars picked up the signal from distance.

It circled in a hexagonal pattern and pointed its sonar arrays to various sources of sound, while artificial intelligence tried to filter out ambient noise and determine the nature of the target, according to the researchers.
One torpedo fired by the drone hit the simulated submarine. For safety reasons, the torpedo was not loaded.

That test, conducted in 2010, was China’s first attempt to simulate the tracking and sinking of a submarine “with the complete absence of humans in an open environment”, Liang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Unmanned submarines could make mistakes, and their communication with human commanders could be interrupted by enemies. Whether a robotic killer should be let loose to hunt and kill humans remains an ethical question.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Cain Marko »

chola wrote:This thing looks smaller than the Ford but bigger than the Nimitz -- by deck area anyways. Size is unprecedented for a conventional carrier. We'll see if it is a proper choice. It would take an inordinate amount of effort just to supply it with fuel for any lengthy deployment. If EMALS, the integrated electric propulsion comes into play and they have never deployed an IEP warship that we know about.

First time catapults and first time IEP in a larger conventional hull than anyone else had done. High risk for high ambitions. They might be wringing things out for decades.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA/ ... 4975977475
Aiyyo Cholaji - why you no send thij photu to honourable shri raksha mantri ophis? A little dhoti shivering there might do some good wonlee. But whatever you do, DO NOT send it to NHQ - they'll ditch a possible Vik II for tallel than fold ship.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by chola »

Cain Marko wrote:
chola wrote:This thing looks smaller than the Ford but bigger than the Nimitz -- by deck area anyways. Size is unprecedented for a conventional carrier. We'll see if it is a proper choice. It would take an inordinate amount of effort just to supply it with fuel for any lengthy deployment. If EMALS, the integrated electric propulsion comes into play and they have never deployed an IEP warship that we know about.

First time catapults and first time IEP in a larger conventional hull than anyone else had done. High risk for high ambitions. They might be wringing things out for decades.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA/ ... 4975977475
Aiyyo Cholaji - why you no send thij photu to honourable shri raksha mantri ophis? A little dhoti shivering there might do some good wonlee. But whatever you do, DO NOT send it to NHQ - they'll ditch a possible Vik II for tallel than fold ship.
Marko ji, I bet 10 to 1 dee IN admirals brought this up this week at MoD over biscoots and chai.

NHQ will not ditch 2nd Vikrant if they knew that 65K ton CATOBAR is somewhere in their future. They are afraid if they agreed on another STOBAR, it will be their last sniff at a carrier for next quarter century at least. Ophis of Raksha Mantri: "You have three carriers now. Come back a few decades from now when VikA reach retirement age. We talk then. Viraat retired at 64, no? Many years left."
Post Reply