Expected in service date 2024-2025, although USN struggled with the new technologies in their USS Gerald R Ford, which took 3.5 years from launch to be commissioned, and some five years later is only just ready for active deployment.
Re: CHINA
Posted: 20 Jun 2022, 19:32
by wargame_insomniac
Interesting article on projected PLAN surface fleet for 2025. Much of the details were in line with recent fleet additions, although still have to note how impressive a build rate they have done so far and appear to be maintaining.
New for me was talk of Type 76 LHD, presumably larger than Type 75, and supposedly with EMALS catapults so maybe able to launch fixed wing aircraft.
Yes they are building fast but as a article in Warship IFR pointed out they are having problems with crew training and that ships commanders have as little as 7 years service plus they are out on there own as far as training i.e they are having to come up with war fighting tactics alone from zero
Now given that there only real training partner is Russia and given there poor performance in both naval and air operations
Also as I have pointed out in the past Chinese navy is matched by that of NATO Europe i.e not including the US and Canada
NATO Europe has
3 x Strike carriers
2 x Light carriers
5 x LHDs
125 x Escorts
Re: CHINA
Posted: 21 Jun 2022, 12:29
by wargame_insomniac
Not sure of the relevance of those numbers as most of those ships will be European based.
The comparison of numbers of PLAN ships would need to be with the USN 7th Fleet advance deployed to Japan, plus any ships on station from USN 3rd Fleet, plus probably allied Japanese and Korean ships.
Other allies such as Australia, UK, France, Netherlands may have ships temporarily in South China Seas e.g. last year's UK CSG21.
I do agree with your point on PLAN's comparative lack training and experience, especially further from Chinese coast.
Until now the main threat of PLAN was in their Anti Access / Area Denial bubble with shore and island mounted radars, sensors and anti air/ship missiles with land based air cover. Once the Fujian and it's J35 fighters become fully operational, that starts pushing that bubble further out into the Pacific.
Re: CHINA
Posted: 21 Jun 2022, 18:10
by Tempest414
Well the between the 3rd and 7th fleets they have 5 carrier strike groups plus 3 LHD's and 3 DDG groups on top of this Japan and South Korea have 6 LHD's and 64+ escorts
Interesting read - China is really starting to go places with her aviation industry - and has truly left Russia behind interms of airframes, and avionics design. Engines are still a work in progress - Russia may have an edge in longevity and maintenance of engines over China still ?
Interesting read - China is really starting to go places with her aviation industry - and has truly left Russia behind interms of airframes, and avionics design. Engines are still a work in progress - Russia may have an edge in longevity and maintenance of engines over China still ?
Design choices for the J-35 are interesting.
They had been working for years with Ukraine on engines and were trying to buy out one of the big players there
In fact there whole carrier program has been backed by Ukraine Carrier 001 , J-15 , engines both air and naval
Re: CHINA
Posted: 29 Oct 2022, 11:45
by SKB
(Forces News) 28th October 2022
A private military contractor has created a new terrifying weapon for China’s military - a robot dog fitted with a machine gun.
As if that wasn't terrifying enough, the robodog can be transported via drone, with a video showing the dog standing up and moving around on the roof of a building.
The video was shared on social media platform Weibo from a verified account of the private Chinese Military contractor.
"War dogs descend from the sky!" the post said.
"The heavy-duty drones can deliver combat dogs, to be directly inserted behind enemy lines and spring surprise attacks on weak links.
"They can also be placed on the rooftops and work with troops on the ground to ambush enemies inside buildings."
US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC yesterday bemoaning the USN unable to keep up with the PLAN build rate.
A picture by a local ship spotter last August (Weibo user @lyman2003) shows five Type 052D destroyers hulls under simultaneous construction at the Dalian shipyard for the PLAN (Chinese Navy) - semi-equivalent of T45's
Does looking like the west is going to be totally outclassed in numbers of large surface combatants, with China tech also getting on par with western tech or at least starting to keep west honest ,think USA , Japan Australia and the odd European navy ship happen to be sailing in eastern waters are going to be in the minority in years to come in numbers compared to Chinese surface fleet , even aircraft carriers Chinese will catch up , already going headlong in large amphib ships to match USN lpd fleet in time ,the west will never build and finance ship capacity like the Chinese I'm afraid, luckily we build better submarines , hopefully we can build more to counteract ultimate Chinese larger fleet ,but who knows time will tell I quess
Re: CHINA
Posted: 23 Feb 2023, 19:06
by Tempest414
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
Re: CHINA
Posted: 23 Feb 2023, 20:54
by wargame_insomniac
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 19:06
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
The problem is that we don't (yet) have a unified command structure in the Pacific, with a whole series of separate bilaterial and multilateral alliances:
Quad: US, Aus, India, Japan
AUKUS: US, Aus, UK
Five Powers: Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, UK
Bilteral: US + Japan, US + South Korea, UK + Japan etc
We need these different agreements to coalesce towards one more formalised alliance.
For me the key will be getting Japan and South Korea to get beyond their historical differences.
Re: CHINA
Posted: 23 Feb 2023, 20:56
by SW1
Do any of the Chinese ships actually work or have actual weapons on them that work?
Re: CHINA
Posted: 23 Feb 2023, 21:02
by sunstersun
SW1 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 20:56
Do any of the Chinese ships actually work or have actual weapons on them that work?
Don't mistake Russia for China.
China has money, industrial and technological powers that should not be underestimated.
I would prefer the Chinese destroyer over 40 year old Burkes.
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 19:06
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
The problem is that we don't (yet) have a unified command structure in the Pacific, with a whole series of separate bilaterial and multilateral alliances:
Quad: US, Aus, India, Japan
AUKUS: US, Aus, UK
Five Powers: Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, UK
Bilteral: US + Japan, US + South Korea, UK + Japan etc
We need these different agreements to coalesce towards one more formalised alliance.
For me the key will be getting Japan and South Korea to get beyond their historical differences.
As said in the past the Australia , Canada , New Zealand & UK need to train to together to form a Navel Battle group with
1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
4 x SSK
1 x LHD
3 x LSD's
4 x Destroyers
8 x Frigates
6 x Support ships
this would form the southern battle group leaving the US and Japan to form the centre battle group and the US and SK to form the Northern battle group
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 19:06
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
The problem is that we don't (yet) have a unified command structure in the Pacific, with a whole series of separate bilaterial and multilateral alliances:
Quad: US, Aus, India, Japan
AUKUS: US, Aus, UK
Five Powers: Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, UK
Bilteral: US + Japan, US + South Korea, UK + Japan etc
We need these different agreements to coalesce towards one more formalised alliance.
For me the key will be getting Japan and South Korea to get beyond their historical differences.
As said in the past the Australia , Canada , New Zealand & UK need to train to together to form a Navel Battle group with
1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
4 x SSK
1 x LHD
3 x LSD's
4 x Destroyers
8 x Frigates
6 x Support ships
this would form the southern battle group leaving the US and Japan to form the centre battle group and the US and SK to form the Northern battle group
If we look at history in early 1900s. The U.K. sign a pack with Japan and Set up the Australian navy to counter the threat of Russia and to an extent the US in the region so it could withdraw it’s ships for service in the home waters for the defence against Germany.
Fast fwd to today and we are doing something similar supplying the technology and intelligence to allow us to concentrate on the security concerns we have in our part of the world.
Our contribution to the force can be in the bottom two categories you list if required.
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 19:06
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
The problem is that we don't (yet) have a unified command structure in the Pacific, with a whole series of separate bilaterial and multilateral alliances:
Quad: US, Aus, India, Japan
AUKUS: US, Aus, UK
Five Powers: Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, UK
Bilteral: US + Japan, US + South Korea, UK + Japan etc
We need these different agreements to coalesce towards one more formalised alliance.
For me the key will be getting Japan and South Korea to get beyond their historical differences.
As said in the past the Australia , Canada , New Zealand & UK need to train to together to form a Navel Battle group with
1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
4 x SSK
1 x LHD
3 x LSD's
4 x Destroyers
8 x Frigates
6 x Support ships
this would form the southern battle group leaving the US and Japan to form the centre battle group and the US and SK to form the Northern battle group
And as I said previously, Canada wouldn't join this Southern battlegroup. Maybe they would join a Northern Battle Group, but their forces would also be covering the North Atlantic and Artic Oceans, as well as North Pacific.
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 19:06
As said over time China has 90 escorts between Australia , Japan & South Korea they have 70 escorts
The problem is that we don't (yet) have a unified command structure in the Pacific, with a whole series of separate bilaterial and multilateral alliances:
Quad: US, Aus, India, Japan
AUKUS: US, Aus, UK
Five Powers: Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, UK
Bilteral: US + Japan, US + South Korea, UK + Japan etc
We need these different agreements to coalesce towards one more formalised alliance.
For me the key will be getting Japan and South Korea to get beyond their historical differences.
As said in the past the Australia , Canada , New Zealand & UK need to train to together to form a Navel Battle group with
1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
4 x SSK
1 x LHD
3 x LSD's
4 x Destroyers
8 x Frigates
6 x Support ships
this would form the southern battle group leaving the US and Japan to form the centre battle group and the US and SK to form the Northern battle group
And as I said previously, Canada wouldn't join this Southern battlegroup. Maybe they would join a Northern Battle Group, but their forces would also be covering the North Atlantic and Artic Oceans, as well as North Pacific.
If the groups where built they would go where they were put the same as the UK remember Canada have a Atlantic and Pacific fleet 5 frigates in each
But even without Canada this battle group would still have 2 SSK's , 6 Frigates and 5 support ships