What's new

Chinese Navy (PLAN) News & Discussions

. . .
Is this official N.o17, N.o18, N.o19 AC model ?

Why "G.Ford" style N.o18 & N.o19 lack AESA radar installed on former N.o16 & N.o17 A.C???

Not sure, but definitely not fan made.

It is from a recent exhibition show from Zhuhai.
 
.
LPD-4 and its little buddies at HDS:
LPD-4.jpg


CCG 2901 and CCG 3901
CCG2901+3901.jpg
 
. . . .
The picture does not looks like it belongs to any part in China.

You are correct ! That's one of the two Russian Mistrals being towed from SPB to France via the German Nord-Ostsee-Canal (see the German flag on the first tug-boat !)

Sadly however ... I would love to see a Chinese LHD.

LHD Mistral-Class-Ship.jpg
 
. . .

2 years is too late. We shall have 2 LHD by now. LHD are great for power projection and humanitarian mission. The long helo deck is able to handle many helo at the same time with succession wave of helo loaded with relief items for disaster victims can be handed to them quickly in case of natural disaster like earthquakes which destroy roads and highways. Making road transport item impossible. Same as power projection in wartime.

The 071 LDP that can only handle 2 helo at the same time is not enough. I can bet must be corrupted PLA officers suppress PLAN expansion program. President Xi wanted to build a powerful PLAN but many old PLA old timer must have obstruct Xi's plan so as to strengthen their tradition PLA base power. That is why Xi is taking action now to root out these corrupted officers.

So far all China military officer convicted of graft are from PLA only. No PLAAF, PLAN and PLANAF officers are convicted of graft offences.
 
.
The last Type 052C DDG 153 + DDG 155(?D6,to the left)
DDG153.jpg


DDG 173(note the dangling flag rope)about to receive the last coat of paint before commission
DDG173.jpg


DDGs 174 and 154(?D5)
DDG174+154.jpg


DDG 175
DDG175.jpg


Modules for D7 and D8(DDGs 156 and 157??):enjoy:
DDG7+8.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
Of course. It is understandable because you clearly have limited critical thinking skills.

The PLAN went westward to help in the search for MH370. If you take a look at the map, hopefully you know what a map is, you will see that there are many countries with many ports along the way. Since this is a humanitarian mission, countries would be friendly towards any vessel involved in the search effort. That friendliness would be temporary.

The gist of the article is that if there is any conflict in the East China Sea sector, or anywhere that requires the PLAN to deploy its fleet far from home ports, the lack of friendly relations to any country, as far south as Australia, would hinder the PLAN's ability to prosecute that conflict, and if the conflict involves the US, which most likely will, the US will have the advantage because the US have friendly relationships with many countries in the area. We are returning to the Philippines. We already have port access in Japan, South Korea, and Australia. If the US have improved relation with Viet Nam, and most likely we will, there will be friendly ports there as well.

So in the end, the laugh is on you.

--"The gist of the article is that if there is any conflict in the East China Sea sector, or anywhere that requires the PLAN to deploy its fleet far from home ports".

If the conflict is indeed stemming from the East China Sea sector (the most likely scenario in which the PLAN would be involved, along with the South China Sea), I fail to understand why it would require "the PLAN to deploy its fleet far from home ports", to the extant that the PLAN will have to consider docking as far south as Australia. Since any war scenario with Japan, ROC or the Philippines would not require the PLAN to sail that far away from Chinese naval bases.

On the other hand, it is almost absurd to think the Chinese will be conflicting with the USA anywhere else in the present, some where that would involve the PLAN venturing as far as Australia. The only realistic scenario in which the Chinese would be concerned about that part of the world is if the USA decides to chock the maritime oil and gas imports routes off the coast of south Asia. But at that point, having a few friendly ports in Australia serves no good to the PLAN, as it is wise enough to not engage the USN (surface to surface warfare)in waters away from ground-based supports (Air wings, SAM, ASBM, etc).



On a side note, do you honestly believe that all, or most US allies in Asia will be willing to open its ports to USN vessels actively engaged in seek-n-destroy missions against PLAN because the US is taking side in an territorial dispute?! Aside from mutual nuclear annihilation, those countries who chose to ally with the US during times of war will have still HAVE to establish bilateral relations and trade with the Chinese, do you think it is in their best interest to stake in the future economic prosperity of their country in a war that doesn't even involve the US in the first place?
 
Last edited:
. .
Back
Top Bottom