Jump to content


Photo

Thresholds Of Prc Military Power

China PLAN PLAAF

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#41 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 31 July 2018 - 1023 AM

I'm aware they've been developing catapults - in fact they have been developing BOTH types of catapults side by side. That co-development doesn't inspire confidence. Given the issues the USN has had with EMALs installation I'd be rather surprised if the Chinese model just drops in and launches their fighters without issues, given that they've little practical experience actually launching fighters from any kind of cat.
  • 0

#42 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 31 July 2018 - 1036 AM

I'm aware they've been developing catapults - in fact they have been developing BOTH types of catapults side by side. That co-development doesn't inspire confidence. Given the issues the USN has had with EMALs installation I'd be rather surprised if the Chinese model just drops in and launches their fighters without issues, given that they've little practical experience actually launching fighters from any kind of cat.


Developing both enables the possibility to evaluate both types and make a decision based on demonstrated performance of each type and cost.

No one is saying they won't have issues in development. That doesn't stop progress and deployment.
  • 0

#43 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 31 July 2018 - 1335 PM

EMALS is clearly a better system if you can get it to work. That they're developing steam as well tells me they aren't 100% on EMALS. The PRC has done this with a lot of their weapons development, either following two paths of development or else developing items in parallel to foreign purchases. It won't stop progress and deployment, but it might delay deployment. I've no doubt the PLAN will have four carriers some day; the question is only in what time frame.
  • 0

#44 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 01 August 2018 - 0755 AM

One other thing to keep an eye on is their submarines. A couple of changes. First is the completion of the submarine production Bohai shipyard just last year that can apparently make up to four SSNs at the same time. The second point is the question as to how good is the Type 95 submarine. Highly speculative. Probably not an equal to Virginia but perhaps on par with upgraded Los Angeles. Whatever the case, have to doubt that the new Bohai shipyard is meant to make only a dozen SSNs.


  • 0

#45 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 August 2018 - 1047 AM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.

But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.
  • 0

#46 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 01 August 2018 - 1152 AM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.

But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

 

They can make sure a patch of water can't be entered by US subs and chase "oceanographic" ships away, but quiet sub development is the one area in which they face more challenges and is more expensive to develop adequate capability. Remember they not only contend with US SSNs but also with Japanese and South Korean SSKs, which are top of the line.


  • 0

#47 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 01 August 2018 - 1859 PM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.


For listening, it is likely the case that whenever US subs enter the first island chain, China gets to practice listening to US subs. Also, how well could we expect the US to listen inside the Bohai Sea that has two peninsulas closing it off?
  • 0

#48 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 01 August 2018 - 1932 PM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.
But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

 
They can make sure a patch of water can't be entered by US subs and chase "oceanographic" ships away, but quiet sub development is the one area in which they face more challenges and is more expensive to develop adequate capability. Remember they not only contend with US SSNs but also with Japanese and South Korean SSKs, which are top of the line.

ROK sub fleet isn't really that impressive. The Chang Bogo are small and without AIP AFAIK. The Son Wonil are good but only up to 9. Unlikely to be a factor for scenerios beyond the Korean peninsula.

Australia has somehow managed to pretty much factor out their own sub card from the equition for 2-3 decades..

Diplomacy between the US and China has left Taiwan with no meaningful sub force, even in strict defense.

Vietnam is getting 6 improved Kilo subs but China has 10 of those.

As for PRC conventional subs, maybe Type 39 is worse than the improved Kilo or maybe its about equal. But what about the Type 39A, 39AG, 39B? Can we still speak from an impression that these are like the old noisy Mings? The 39As are already in high production. At some point, they will replace all the old noisy Mings. And then replacing improvef Kilo and plain Type 39s, making about 40 of 39As. Are the Type 39As good? Would they enable the Type 95s SSNs to roam freely wherever?
  • 0

#49 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 01 August 2018 - 2018 PM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.

But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

Unless the leadership do something monumentally stupid, the Chinese growth rate will remain relatively high till they reach the productivity frontier - where 'relatively high' is at least twice the US rate.


  • 0

#50 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 02 August 2018 - 0611 AM

Meanwhile..

This post has been updated to correct the amphibious ships that suffered mechanical problems preventing their full participation in RIMPAC. USS Boxer was sidelined with mechanical difficulties and could not participate in RIMPAC SOCAL. USS Portland (LPD-27) served as the 3rd Fleet command ship for the duration of the exercise.
 
THE PENTAGON — The two U.S. amphibious warships that were planned to be central to the Rim of the Pacific 2018 exercises were unable to fully participate in the event due to mechanical failures that highlight continued readiness problems with the Navy’s amphibious fleet.
 
The amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) was set to lead the amphibious portion of the Rim of the Pacific 2018 exercise, but it spent the second half of the exercise tied to a pier in Pearl Harbor. USS Boxer (LHD-4) was set to be a key platform in Southern California RIMPAC SOCAL but was sidelined before the exercise.
 
In December, half of the Navy’s 31 amphibious ships were in maintenance as a result of short-term spending bills and irregular funding, Vice Adm. Andrew Lewis, deputy chief of naval operations for operations, plans and strategy (OPNAV N3/N5), said at a House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing.
 
Bonhomme Richard was set to be the command ship for the exercise’s maritime component commander, Chilean Navy Commodore Pablo Niemann Figari. However, partway through the exercise the ship suffered a propulsion casualty and came back to port, USNI News understands. Niemann, his staff and the ship’s company still participated in the exercise from the pier, USNI News understands.
 
“USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) is currently in port Pearl Harbor and is participating in RIMPAC 2018,” reads a U.S. 3rd Fleet statement to USNI News this week. Officials would not elaborate on why the ship was not underway.
 
Among the operations, the crew conducted was launching lightly loaded landing craft from Bonhomme Richard while it was pier-side.
 
Big deck amphib Boxer was set to host Mexican, Canadian, U.S. and Brazilian forces for an amphibious landing exercise. The lack of amphibious shipping in the Southern California portion of the exercise caused Brazil to drop out of the exercise, USNI News has learned.
 
“There was going be some more amphibious operations [in California]. One of the ships we had identified had some mechanical issues, so we were not able to get her out of maintenance in time to do that. … Most of the [Southern California] amphibious operations turned into land training with our partner nations and our Marines there at [Camp] Pendleton,” 3rd Fleet commander Vice Adm. John Alexander told reporters at a July 20 press conference at Pearl Harbor. “When the amphibious ship couldn’t get underway, Brazil decided they didn’t want to participate.”
 
When USNI News originally asked on July 2 why Brazil had dropped out of RIMPAC, U.S. Navy spokeswoman Lt. j.g. Ada Anderson said it was due to a “change in operational schedules.”
 
The high demand for a limited number of amphibious warships prompted a congressionally mandated study from the Government Accountability Office that was released in September. The GAO found that the 31 amphibious ships in the U.S. fleet were insufficient for the Marines to conduct training outside of the pre-deployment training needed for Amphibious Ready Group and Marine Expeditionary Unit training.
 
“The services have taken steps to address amphibious training shortfalls, such as more comprehensively determining units that require training. However, these efforts are incomplete because the services do not have an approach to prioritize available training resources, evaluate training resource alternatives, and monitor progress towards achieving priorities,” read the report. “The services are not well positioned to mitigate any training shortfalls.”

  • 0

#51 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 02 August 2018 - 0803 AM

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.

But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

Unless the leadership do something monumentally stupid, the Chinese growth rate will remain relatively high till they reach the productivity frontier - where 'relatively high' is at least twice the US rate.


The issue is still in doubt. Their economy is already showing signs of slowing and their debt is even more unsustainable than the US. Unlike the US, most of that debt is domestic, often local, but never the less their are real risks of a huge economic slow down. For that matter the US is likely to experience the same thing in the next year or two, and usually that causes problems for everyone. There is also the issue of population inversion due to the one child policy that will heavily impact their work force in a decade.

So IMO the jury is still out on sustained Chinese economic growth.
  • 0

#52 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1102 AM

https://en.wikipedia..._by_public_debt

 

Gross public dept (as % of GDP) as of 2017:

 

China: 18.6%

USA: 77.4%

 

https://en.wikipedia...ry_expenditures

 

Defense spending as % of GDP:

 

USA: 3.1%

China: 1.9%


  • 0

#53 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1135 AM

 

 

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.

But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

Unless the leadership do something monumentally stupid, the Chinese growth rate will remain relatively high till they reach the productivity frontier - where 'relatively high' is at least twice the US rate.

 


The issue is still in doubt. Their economy is already showing signs of slowing and their debt is even more unsustainable than the US. Unlike the US, most of that debt is domestic, often local, but never the less their are real risks of a huge economic slow down. For that matter the US is likely to experience the same thing in the next year or two, and usually that causes problems for everyone. There is also the issue of population inversion due to the one child policy that will heavily impact their work force in a decade.

So IMO the jury is still out on sustained Chinese economic growth.

 

China has a largely state owned banking system. If there is a banking/insolvency crisis then that is by choice, as the necessary mechanisms (rate reduction through to debt write-downs and recapitalization of SOE banks by PBOC) are already in place to avoid one - and therefore any such crisis will count as 'monumental stupidity'.   


Edited by KV7, 02 August 2018 - 1136 AM.

  • 0

#54 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1156 AM

https://en.wikipedia..._by_public_debt
 
Gross public dept (as % of GDP) as of 2017:
 
China: 18.6%
USA: 77.4%
 
https://en.wikipedia...ry_expenditures
 
Defense spending as % of GDP:
 
USA: 3.1%
China: 1.9%


If you believe those numbers, sure.
  • 0

#55 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1241 PM

 

https://en.wikipedia..._by_public_debt
 
Gross public dept (as % of GDP) as of 2017:
 
China: 18.6%
USA: 77.4%
 
https://en.wikipedia...ry_expenditures
 
Defense spending as % of GDP:
 
USA: 3.1%
China: 1.9%


If you believe those numbers, sure.

 

What do you think is wrong with these ?


  • 0

#56 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1249 PM

They point to the exact opposite conclusion of what is going to happen than what Josh hopes, is the problem with those numbers.


Edited by glenn239, 02 August 2018 - 1250 PM.

  • 0

#57 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1301 PM

 

 

End of the day, they can't test their subs without the US listening in. That has to make polishing them off pretty tough. The US can run its boats across two different sonar ranges off Cali and FLA and get an intricate sound profile from every angle and listen for any imperfections; the PLAN can't do that with the USN also listening in. It must be extremely hard to test and measure new quieting features in that environment.
But yes, it does seem that their break neck ship production will only increase. One has to wonder if their economy takes a hit whether that will slow down, given some of the numbers being estimated right now and ignoring their cooked books.

 
They can make sure a patch of water can't be entered by US subs and chase "oceanographic" ships away, but quiet sub development is the one area in which they face more challenges and is more expensive to develop adequate capability. Remember they not only contend with US SSNs but also with Japanese and South Korean SSKs, which are top of the line.

ROK sub fleet isn't really that impressive. The Chang Bogo are small and without AIP AFAIK. The Son Wonil are good but only up to 9. Unlikely to be a factor for scenerios beyond the Korean peninsula.

Australia has somehow managed to pretty much factor out their own sub card from the equition for 2-3 decades..

Diplomacy between the US and China has left Taiwan with no meaningful sub force, even in strict defense.

Vietnam is getting 6 improved Kilo subs but China has 10 of those.

As for PRC conventional subs, maybe Type 39 is worse than the improved Kilo or maybe its about equal. But what about the Type 39A, 39AG, 39B? Can we still speak from an impression that these are like the old noisy Mings? The 39As are already in high production. At some point, they will replace all the old noisy Mings. And then replacing improvef Kilo and plain Type 39s, making about 40 of 39As. Are the Type 39As good? Would they enable the Type 95s SSNs to roam freely wherever?

 

 

I don't doubt the latest PLA SSKs are pretty much up to scratch but they are only useful close to home, where they can operate below air cover and in shallow water. In deep water or far from air cover, they suffer the same ill as all SSKs, they are pretty much inmobile if they want to be silent (even with AIP) and could be "flushed out" with LFA sonar.


  • 0

#58 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1323 PM

The PLAN SSK fleet could probably operate at will anywhere inside the first island chain. Crossing out of that area would be a little problematic however, both in terms of time to patrol station and survival rate crossing through monitored choke points under an unfriendly sky.
  • 0

#59 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1330 PM

They point to the exact opposite conclusion of what is going to happen than what Josh hopes, is the problem with those numbers.


I don't tend to believe economic numbers put forth by the CCP. Their defense budget is routinely low balled and their measurements of debt tends to ignore a lot of shadow banking. As to 'what I want', I don't think a massive economic dislocation will be good for anyone and I suspect it would probably lead to a military conflict with the US or a US ally. So it isn't 'what I want'. I just think their current growth is unsustainable, if only because no other asian nation maintained it historically, and also there is small but real chance that they suffer some sort of economic calamity in the next decade.
  • 0

#60 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 1947 PM

 

They point to the exact opposite conclusion of what is going to happen than what Josh hopes, is the problem with those numbers.


I don't tend to believe economic numbers put forth by the CCP. Their defense budget is routinely low balled and their measurements of debt tends to ignore a lot of shadow banking. As to 'what I want', I don't think a massive economic dislocation will be good for anyone and I suspect it would probably lead to a military conflict with the US or a US ally. So it isn't 'what I want'. I just think their current growth is unsustainable, if only because no other asian nation maintained it historically, and also there is small but real chance that they suffer some sort of economic calamity in the next decade.

 

The private debt might be understated, but there is no real way to cook the books on public debt, nor is there a good reason as it is not high, and there is near zero chance of sovereign default.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: China, PLAN, PLAAF

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users