crobatoHypothesis: They will field a few just for the sheer pride and prestige of it…
Why do I see it that way? For the sheer size of a country
as China, coupled with the purchasing power it is now blissed, metaphorically speaking,
Mercede Benzes should be a common scenes and a “MUST”!!!Argument: All those theme parks that utilizes aircraft carriers as
a venue tells a story!!! It shows us how consume or the desire the Chinese may have
in their minds for carriers because of the image carriers project.I mean why must they utilize, of all vessels, aircraft carriers
for their theme parks? Why not cruiseships or ferries which can easily be had??? I mean
don’t you think that that’s weird? The logic is simply not there!!!But, make no mistake: They know carriers are a liability and as
such are pouring everything they have into subs, anti-ship missiles, fighter bombers,
and other deterences as the country’s national defense priorities.Another example: If they ordered Airforce One, they will want Carriers!!!
😮
PLAN used to have an admiral that was very pro-carrier. He had much of the PLAN’s reins in the late nineties. That was all where the carrier related stuff was coming from.
The next guy that replaced him had a very different naval philosophy. He is more of the sub faction and the sub guys has since taken over the PLAN. This means you’re going to see less surface ship development and more subs and subs.
PLANAF is now run by a former PLAAF aviator, so you can expect PLANAF to act more and more like a subsidiary of the PLAAF rather than the PLAN.
crobatoMaybe British and Chinese??
3 ports… I did say it was only as a matter of speaking, China does not have 1,000 tankers either. It’s just a numerical example, like this entire “exercise”.
However some people feel quite injured here and want to shift the debate on India 😀
It is a bad thing to think India is a midget, since it’s growing a LOT lately. Also 60% of NASA engineers are Indians, they are excellent in Electronics, also their shipbuilding market is growing a lot too. Probably overtaking China’s in several years.
India would in fact be a harder target. It has much more space to defend, but also much more space to use. With 5 SSNs, it would be impossible to cover the West, South and East of India. This is harder than the Chinese example because the SSNs can’t go straight to a new zone… There are much less chokepoints and merchants going to India have a lot more space to choose a track to get to their port. Their ASW is better than the Chinese one. They do have the IL-38 May ASW aircraft, several more Helix helicopters together with 10 Kilo class SSKs and a large number of German built Type 209 class SSKs, in total that makes about 18 or 20 submarines, lot less than China, but all of them are relatively new. Also they are ordering more modern subs too now (not that that makes a difference in a current situation exercise). Their carrier also has some Helix helicopters onboard and they are therefor capable of doing some long range defence too. They can shield the Red Sea entrance to the Indian ocean and if necessary also the Taiwan strait (from the base on the Andaman and Nicobar islands) to keep an eye on any possible sub entering the Indian ocean.
IN’s ASW boat is about the same as the PLAN’s. PLAN has an entire reg of Helix—about 20-40 helos est—in addition to two Helix each on the Sovs, two each on the 052C, two each on the 052B (another six), plus Z-9C Dauphins and Z-8 Super Frelons. About 8 to 9 Songs by now (add one more for every 4-6 months), 4 Kilos, with 8 Kilos under construction of which 2 has already been launched. (Of all these Kilos, only 2 are not of the 636 type.) Then you have at least one Yuan, but you might have more under construction. USN appears to believe at least one Type 093 SSN has been launched and another already in construction.
crobatoThe new DDGs do have ASW capability, otherwise you can explain those MLRS style charge launchers and the Z-9C/ Helix helos they have on deck. They’re meant as an expression of power with other countries, otherwise missile boats and subs would have siffice performing a blockade of Taiwan.
crobatoRib spacing seems like S-300 container to me.
crobatoDoesn’t really matter by whom it is made, it’s low frequency instead of medium, meaning it is much less aimable/directable. Meaning it will detect something at longer range, but your bearing will be crude.
As for you port issue, be sure that is not an issue, they simply HAVE to use these Northern ports. Their inflow of Oil and goods would be decimated, if not even parted by half, if they only used their Northern ports. You can have a 1,000 tankers, but if you only have 3 ports, you’re sh*t with your tankers, because basically, they’ll be all laying at anchor waiting till the next can enter. Meaning that most of the time only 10 or 15 of your tankers will be at sea (just a matter of speaking of course, depends on length of trip etc). That is also the reason why I would like Anti-Port warfare instead of Anti-tanker warfare. Although that doesn’t really fit into the scheme here, since Jonesy’s point is proving the anti-surface capabilities of the SSNs (in which he very much succeeds according to me). JOnesy is indeed the one doing the planning here and taking the initiative. All I can see you do is just react on things he tells you. Indeed you should take in account that you don’t know what Jonesy tells you. The only thing you know is that tankers are being attacked along the Chinese coast and that there are some SSNs around. What will you do? Send out an aircraft to all places where tankers are attacked? Send your surface ships to that area?
Three ports only? Are you kidding? Along the south, there is Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Macau, plus other ports along the Pearl River delta. Not to mention that ships can go right up the main rivers, as the Pearl River. However, port warfare is still better than tanker warfare.
Jonesy’s assumption appears based on Taiwan being at war, but it does not make sense for Chinese tankers to sail along the west coast of Taiwan and pass through the Ryukus if Taiwan is hostile. In that case, Taiwan’s F-16s would have the radius to strike the tankers and there would be no point in bringing them up north.
Now if your assumption is that Taiwan is not at war, then you can bring the tankers up north and pass through the Ryukus. But why would you do that when you can make them pass through the STRAITS directly, and avoid the Ryukus.
It’s also completely silly to think that China depends on the tanker trade when it does not. It has its own inland oil reserves and has pipelines to Siberia and Central Asia. It also gets oil from off shore reserves.
Doing any thinking? I don’t see any real thought here.
crobatoSub guys are running PLAN now. No way they’re going to build a carrier or even attempt to make the Varyag into one.
crobatoThis is what sinodefence.com said about the Ming sonars:
SONARS
The Type 035 is fitted with Pike Jaw bow-mounted, medium-frequency sonar for active/passive search and attack. Later variants are also fitted with a DUUX-5 low frequency sonar for passive ranging and intercept.
Oopps. Is the DUUX done by Thompson, a French company?
crobato[QUOTE=Jonesy]Crobato
It seems I’m the guy doing the detailed planning for the blockade enforcement part of a maritime trade embargo on China. An embargo that, for SSNs to have been deployed in the first place, assumes cooperation from the neighbouring nations. Merchant escort taskings are fairly routine for many navies and both the South Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese are well provided for in terms of escorts to provide the coverage.
That has nothing to do whether the sub is able to discriminate from Taiwan, China, Korea, Russian or Japanese shipping. You have not explained that to me not one single ounce.
Your assumption of cooperation comes with another assumption—that the vessels of the friendly nation will not get hit. Probablility errors and margins will not guarantee that, and you cannot guarantee that a sub is able to distinguish neutral and hostile shipping.
This is a job for SURFACE ships, not subs.
Remember though Crobato, in this scenario, they dont care!. The important thing here though is that we’ve now moved on from your shielding the Chinese coast behind neutral merchants and Greenpeace to your utter refusal to believe something that I said would never happen, in the real world, in the first place?. Are you reading what I am writing or just ignoring it and plowing on with your own agenda regardless?.
Subs patrolling their fishing waters and they don’t care? What kind of dream world are you living in? You’re also talking about an area that’s full of trawlers with big fishing nets.
As for talking about agendas, look who is talking here.
Look at your MAP! You are the one who drew the blockade areas. You drew blockade areas right near the Korean, Japanese and Ryukus.
As I thought I’d already mentioned once or twice thats the best water available in the ECS for SSN ops. Politics not being an important factor thats the water the SSNs would use as there is no real need for neutral vessels to be in them. Below should be the two maps I used earlier with safe lanes marked in green for both patrol zones. The red lanes indicate the general courses for merchant vessels to reach Chinese ports. You’ve not answered the question as to quite why a neutral merchantman would be on those courses inside the SSN patrol areas unless they were heading for a Chinese port?. The blue lanes, to South Korea and Taiwan, are the ones where a naval escort would be a necessity for friendly merchies – two lanes across the whole Chinese coast – big deal!.
The red lines are WHAT YOU DREW as routes during a PEACETIME situation/
I have already answered the question why a neutral merchantman can be outside those routes BECAUSE THESE THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. There is always someone who won’t or ain’t going to follow or will be mistaken. You just deviced a plan with ZERO contingency where you mix both hostile and neutral zones in a complex and confusing web WITHOUT considering maritime laws and UN engagement rules. That’s all been the experience of Germany in both wars that there is no such thing as a SELECTIVE blockade of any sort involving subs, and any action involving submarines must be TOTAL WAR.
My source for the Ming sonar type is Janes Fighting Ships 1996-7 and is corroborated by the Sinodefence website. I’m assuming you have an equally credible source for the re-equipping of the Ming fleet with newer sonar types?
Jane’s is proven to be wet when it comes to Chinese matters. As for sinodefence.com, they only described the Type 035, not the 035G. If you read the text carefully, the 035G is something else—we know it has a new passive sonar, command systems, fire control systems, new antisound coatings…
OK and how do you know that its a narrow blockade area?. You know that because I’ve told you where it is. The PLAN in the real world wouldnt have such convenient information to allow them to focus the modest ASW they have in the way you suggest? They could probably take a guess at that area, as it is the optimal one, but they wont know the defined extents of the zone and, as I’ve said, they dont have that much ASW to spread about.
Oh man, THAT is a narrow blockade area. Never worked with the Germans or with the Japanese during WWII.
We’re talking about the southern coast at least. During a war time, China would not be using its northern ports at all. By concentrating on the south, it can also concentrate its ASW assets there. There is no way the ships can reach the northern ports without passing through Taiwan, so that is already a given those ports won’t be used at all.
The operations in the ECS being in the Japanese and SK EEZ’s might also have the benefit of providing defacto air cover to the RN patrol zone there. As the Japanese and S.Koreans may not be too pleased to have patrolling PLAN MPA’s in their airspace. I would not suggest that they may actually shoot at the Chinese aircraft, but, even if they just escort them safely away it reduces the threat to the SSNs quite handily.
Pretty useless exercise anyway since Chinese ships are not going to be traveling far north. They will pretty much concentrated on the south, and it is likely they might even offload in Vietnamese, Malaysian or Thai ports.
PLAN MPA won’t be going into Japanese or S. Korean airspace, and I really doubt the Japanese or the S. Koreans would let the RN do it either.
crobatoI don’t think the J10 falls is the same “light” weight fighter category. If china wants no fc1 then why are they putting so much attention on this plane? The J10 is going to redesigning (j10-A). But strangely no new pics lately… Can anyone tell me when the show is? Thanks.
Attention on an airshow has nothing to do with PLA interest. A great deal of stuff the PLA use does not appear in airshows, and that’s for all three branches. The PLA does not use MBT-2000s but that’s what they put on shows.
They only advertise in defense shows the intended for export stuff.
crobatothe problem and why i said it is a ming is because i recall having seen this photo before… years ago. The old CDF thread might have cleared this up but unfortunately the photos from afew years back was lost during the server crash.
You will have a hard time explaining those photos as Mings, given the cylindrical shape of the hulls.
crobatoBlueshark/Crobato
I have said at least 6 distinct times that the point I am making here is nothing whatever to do with the political likelihood or economic reality of an embargo and blockade of the Chinese mainland. Whether it IS feasible or whether the whole rest of the world will come crashing down without the middle kingdoms’ benevolent and majestic presence is utterly, totally and completely irrelevent.
Quite frankly I care very little as to the conduct of South Korean or Japanese merchantmen in the SCS or ECS operational areas. They dont need to be in those waters unless theyre actively heading for Chinese destination ports. If there are small areas around the SK coast where there could be an overlap that Chinese merchants could take advantage of well the SK’s posses a capable Navy and they could easily escort groups of their merchantment safely through the lines to their ports. Likewise if Japanese marine commerce is significantly put out they have plenty of escorts that they could use to look after their own interests. We’ve done it constantly since 1980 with the Armilla patrol in the Gulf.
Who are you to decide that you should tell them that they should in those areas. Those are their traditional shipping routes, not to mention right in the heart of their own EEZs. You will hurt Korean and Japanese shipping more than Chinese shipping.
I don’t believe that the Japanese should be forced to escort their own ships FROM THE RN because the RN is patroling their territorial and EEZ waters. That’s an outright violation of sovereignty.
You’re talking about blocking routes that the Chinese DON’T EVEN USE. You’re blocking routes that only the Japanese and Koreans use. How quiant.
Eh? The Chinese dont use the Taiwan Strait to get traffic round to Shanghai? What destination is there, apart from China, that obliges a vessel to transit the East China Sea on a westerly course? What destination is there, apart from China, that places a vessel on a northerly course in the South China Sea?. Its absolute nonsense man look at a map!.
Look at your MAP! You are the one who drew the blockade areas.
You drew blockade areas right near the Korean, Japanese and Ryukus.
No the Mings search sensor is the PIKE JAW or Herkules active/passive sonar. A system that was, from memory, first deployed operationally in 1957!. Some units, not note all, have had a French passive ranging and intercept sonar grafted on. Not the same thing. The Song-class apparently are fitted with the Thales TSM2233 search and attack set which is a fairly widely exported cylindrical array unit and is decent. The Kilo’s have a newish Russian set thats at least comparable to the early block TSM2233’s.
Wrong. The sub involved in the accident, No. 361, appeared in TV and it was said it was using a new sonar system. Do you honestly think that the Chinese would not improve their own sets after all these years? They put ERA and 120mm cannons on T-55s, slotted arrays on J-7s, and passive seekers on SA-2 Guidelines.
A handful of newer units? You have up to 8-9 Songs now, and a new one coming out every few months, plus the four Kilos, and 8 new Kilos joining the fleet.
So of your vast fleet of SSK’s, by your statement, you have 12 or 13 that are ready and competetive until the new Kilo’s arrive from Russia. Thats the basis of your impenetrable SSK screen is it?
A few subs plus a fleet of Mings are more than enough to patrol the exceedingly NARROW zone you drew up as a blockade area off the Hong Kong coast. Not to mention they are all within helo reach.
A lot more than that! Have a close look at the Japanese ASW order of battle. Their operational area was mainly focussed on the Sea of Okhotsk for obvious reasons – not a huge operational area but one they felt they required a LOT of assets for.
They are a naval power facing the massive Soviet sub fleet. They can die without shipping. China does not. China itself is a major oil, gas and coal producer on its own.
In fact you appear to know so little about the area that it boggles my mind that you don’t seem to know there are massive oil reserves along in the South, East and North China seas, and you can do far more economic damage blowing up these drilling stations than a blockade can ever do.
crobatoCome on guys why do u doubt this dude, he says afterall he works in the J-10 factory. As we all know China is a very liberal democratic country and will allow its citizens to post such information without reprisal. :dev2: About the dry thrust, they have been able to develop the super duper WS-10A with pakistani technology….
Reprisals have not stopped leaks before, and we have seen plenty of leaks in all other areas—I don’t believe the Yuan class sub was intended to be photographed or released to the public not just yet. It is really very hard to catch this which is a reason why people are bold.
This is not to mention the “reprisal curtain” for the J-10 has been lifted some time ago, and people can easily post info about it (short of anything as genuine OPSEC status) without any repurcussion.
Of course we don’t take all rumors as true as there are many pranksters as well.
crobatoWS-10A is currently rated at 13,200kg maximum thrust (equal to roughly 29,000lbs) and thiat is based from scanned Chinese magazines articles of such. The expected service data of this engine is about 2005. The original WS-10 engine is rated at about 12,000kg or 24,000lbs.
There is a new version of the WS-10 rated at 32,000lbs (WS-10B?). The compressor stage of this engine was displayed in Zhuhai 2002. Probably end up with the J-10 but that will be further down the road. The J-10 will probably go through the phase of the AL-31FN then get to the WS-10A before getting to this. This engine might also end up in future J-XX projects.
The Chinese also made no secret they’re working on TVC, and that will remain a future option for J-10.
The emphasis is to fulfill PLAAF demand first. PLANAF wants it too but they have to wait in line. That will mean PAF and other export variants will take a while.
For the engines, it is also possible that the Chinese may also acquire improved upgraded versions of the AL-31FN instead. They seem to be quite satisfied with the reliability of the AL-31FN, compared to the AL-31Fs with their Sues.
KANWA is doubling its estimates on the AL-31FNs that were delivered and to be delivered to China. Instead of 300 engines, it will be like 600 engines, but a portion of it is for use as spares.
crobatohow far is PLAN from getting a decent fleet of AIP equipped SSK ?
that would even the odds somewhat.
There is a lot of talk on this one, and some people believe that some of the Mings and Songs already have this. The new Yuan is deeply suspected to have API.
crobatoI don’t see how the F-35 and the JAS-39 have similar thrust to weight ratios. The F-35 has double the thrust but is only 50% heavier. Not to mention the JAS-39 carrying only 2260kg of fuel internall is really small. The JAS-39 would definitely have to be tanked. I just can’t see past the obvious, sorry.
Sign In
