PLA Navy Carrier/Fighters..

[Neo]

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variants
J-10A : Single seater baseline Multirole model. The export designation is F-10A.
J-10B : Twin seater version, for Training, Electronic Warfare (EW), Mini-AWACS and possibly Ground Attack. The export designation for the twin seater, however, remains F-10B.
Super-10 (J-10C) : A "stealth", twin-engined, naval carrier-based variant with thrust-vector control

AN,
Its all speculation...and that too from a most unreliable source. To me J-11B or even the newly purchased Su-33 seem like a better option for Chinese navy, both are developped for navy.

 

[mxiong]

In addition PLANAF would undergo significant change once China's first aircraft carrier is fully operational. Aircraft such as carrier-borne variants of the J-10 or J-11 may enter service with the navy.

From the same article link U sent me.

Regards

Let me put it this way, before 2015 the only fighter you will see onboard PLAN AC will be Shenyang J-11BJ(J-15?). After that, who knows, Chengdu may come out with a JSF-class naval stealth fighter, but whether it resembles or is based on today's J-10, is another myth.

 

[mxiong]

AN,
Its all speculation...and that too from a most unreliable source. To me J-11B or even the newly purchased Su-33 seem like a better option for Chinese navy, both are developped for navy.

I just noticed the Super-10 speculation comes form Richard Fisher in 2004...well...you all know how much it is worth...

 

[gpit]

...
In the PLAN's case, the sole purpose is power projection to ...

Good point. This is the key question that has to be answered by any strategic planners: why do the Chinese need a cash-burning AC, given their limited military resources and many challenges, and that their navy is meant for “near sea/ocean defense”?

1) Taiwan Strait conflict. Taiwan is too close to the mainland, ACBG helps when positioned off the east coast of Taiwan, but is probably not that vital, whereas missiles are much cheaper and more meaningful. Improvements of PLAAF hardware and software are also more efficient.
2) South China Sea conflicts. AC makes sense, since those islands are too small to logistically sustain large scale conflicts, and are too far away from the mainland.
3) Malacca Straits and beyond. There are too many fingers on the Straits. China can put a fraction of a finger by cooperating with Burma, Thailand. But without consolidating South China Sea, the projection to the Straits won’t be solid, not to mention to go beyond in that direction.

In addition, for global deterrence purposes, PLAN submarines are formidable enough and are still in fast production, albeit not the most sophisticated yet.

The reasonable speculation is probably 2) above for their near term purpose, which isn’t their immediate agenda.

Thus, IMHO, China doesn’t need AC right now, but maybe in next 10 years. Of course, this doesn’t negate their desires and efforts in playing some of the technologies at all: this is needed even for the purpose of studying and destroying their enemy’s ACBGs.

 

[Jliu]

No offence, but

1) Don’t you believe that Keating, in his capacity as an US Adm., is probably more professional and has more overall information?

2) If "its a complete joke ", why the US Adm. is concerned? Of course, one should never rule out the needs for political propaganda.

My apologies if I did not clarify but he is referring to what appears to be the JL-2 SLBM mounted on the new 094 SSBNs by "ballistic missiles". He's also mentioned lack of transparency and the usual issues so of course as the top brass he has more information as he is not only responsible for undersea warfare.

I meant the AshBMs were a complete joke but not SLBMS because fixed structures and people cannot get out of the way in time!

 

[nitesh]

Good point. This is the key question that has to be answered by any strategic planners: why do the Chinese need a cash-burning AC, given their limited military resources and many challenges, and that their navy is meant for “near sea/ocean defense”?

1) Taiwan Strait conflict. Taiwan is too close to the mainland, ACBG helps when positioned off the east coast of Taiwan, but is probably not that vital, whereas missiles are much cheaper and more meaningful. Improvements of PLAAF hardware and software are also more efficient.
2) South China Sea conflicts. AC makes sense, since those islands are too small to logistically sustain large scale conflicts, and are too far away from the mainland.
3) Malacca Straits and beyond. There are too many fingers on the Straits. China can put a fraction of a finger by cooperating with Burma, Thailand. But without consolidating South China Sea, the projection to the Straits won’t be solid, not to mention to go beyond in that direction.

In addition, for global deterrence purposes, PLAN submarines are formidable enough and are still in fast production, albeit not the most sophisticated yet.

The reasonable speculation is probably 2) above for their near term purpose, which isn’t their immediate agenda.

Thus, IMHO, China doesn’t need AC right now, but maybe in next 10 years. Of course, this doesn’t negate their desires and efforts in playing some of the technologies at all: this is needed even for the purpose of studying and destroying their enemy’s ACBGs.

I have one question, suppose war breaks out between India and China, then what is the PLAN's answer to the tri services command located in Andaman and Nicobar island chain. Wouldn't and CBG will be useful in that scenario.

 

[gpit]

... but he is referring to what appears to be the JL-2 SLBM mounted on the new 094 SSBNs by "ballistic missiles". He's also mentioned lack of transparency and the usual issues so of course as the top brass he has more information as he is not only responsible for undersea warfare.

...

I beg to differ.

Nuclear capable multi-headed JL-2 on 094 are meant to be strategic deterrence, not a tactical weapon.

This report, in a plain language, tells what’s in US mind: U.S. military officials wary of China's expanding fleet of submarines - International Herald Tribune

“The term area-denial weapons refers to a combination of armaments, technology and tactics that could be used to dominate a specific area or keep opposing forces at bay in a conflict. And one of the most formidable examples U.S. commanders identify is the Chinese Navy's rapidly expanding fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines.”

If you read on, it specifies that the weapons that the Chinese have made US worry are submarines, state-of-the-art torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

 

[gpit]

Just an addition to my above comments, I remember a paper claims that Chinese area-denial weapons are multi-layered: it composes weapons operated in space (satellite and anti-satellite), air (planes and various missiles), surface and under water.

I actually find a nice paper: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008

"...In this context, the PLA appears engaged in a sustained effort to develop the capability to interdict or attack, at long ranges, military forces – particularly air or maritime forces – that might deploy or operate within the western Pacific. Increasingly, China’s anti-access/area denial forces overlap, providing multiple layers of offensive systems, utilizing the sea, air, space, and cyber-space."

 

[GHATAK]

In an Indo-China war, no chinese oil tankers will cross the Indian ocean, leave alone the malacca straight. The malabar 07 was a good rehearsal.

And with India reopening an airstrip near the karakonam range, the oil pipeline, if contructed will be bombed first.

Chinese are in such a disadvantage position, but I dont understand why they want to make more enemies.

Given the huge oil consumption in China, it will be easily choked.

 

[GHATAK]

To put it simply.

If you are going after a US carrier battle group, you will need the entire Soviet AVMF. It's going to take a couple of regiments of Backfires, a regiment of Bears and it wouldn't hurt to have a couple of Charlies too. Here's how you do it. First, you fly your RORSAT over the ocean hoping to find the general position of the battle group, and its general course and speed. Let's say you can tie the CVBG down to a patch of ocean, perhaps protecting convoys headed from the US and Canada to Europe. Now with your RORSAT imagry in hand it's time to refine the position. For that, you need Bears, lots of Bears. Mr. Bear flies out over the Atlantic looking and listening for the CVBG. The surviving Bears should radio back the battle group's position and course. (The emphasis here is on surviving.)

Now it's time to launch a Backfire raid. Send a couple of regiments, because you're going to lose lots of them. And, that carrier may have moved between the time your surviving Bears located it and when your Backfires get into position to launch. So, it's best to spread your launchers across a wide swath of ocean. (It also spreads the defense out too.) It's extra helpful if you have some SSGN's (Charlie class boats) too. It's tough to communicate with Charlie and not reveal his position to the ASW folks, but if you can maneuver a Charlie into a blocking position it will help your Backfire raid. So, now you've got your Charlie in position to block the CVBG and maybe even hoist a few SLCMs into the mix. Nothing better than an off threat axis attack to break up the defense.

The closer to the battle group your Backfires can get, the better. They will have better solution sets for their cruise missiles if they can actually get within radar range of the battle group. Of course, this will mean that most if not all your Backfires will get shot down by the F-18Es and Fs. But, hey bagging a CVN is worth losing your air force, isn't it? Launch lots and lots of missiles because the Ticonderogas and Burkes will be shooting down your missiles like it was target practice. Between their own radars, and the E-2, they'll have a good target solution on your missiles, so you need to overwhelm them. That's why I said bring as many regiments of Backfires as you can. Make sure you launch in close, so the F-18s won't attrit your missiles with their own AMRAAMs and Sidewinders. If you launch too far out, you won't have a good enough solution set to get all your missiles pointed at the Carrier and too many of them will be attrited before the SM-2s have at them. In the end, all you can really hope for is a few missiles will leak through and get hits on the carrier.

The PLANAAF is a joke compared to the old Soviet AVNF and has less than 1/30th of the theatre assets the Soviets enjoyed including SSN/SSK assets. The CV will just sit off Taiwan's east coast and you won't be able to do a thing to it short of a full blown nuclear conflict.

Excellent post.

 

[mxiong]

In an Indo-China war, no chinese oil tankers will cross the Indian ocean, leave alone the malacca straight. The malabar 07 was a good rehearsal.

And with India reopening an airstrip near the karakonam range, the oil pipeline, if contructed will be bombed first.

Chinese are in such a disadvantage position, but I dont understand why they want to make more enemies.

Given the huge oil consumption in China, it will be easily choked.

Considering India doesn't even have the political will to pull off the N-deal, I really doubt she gets the gut to implement a maritime blockade in Indian Ocean. And I don't think IN is capable of choking China. Even if against slight odds it happened, what would India react to China's revenge policy of "for one tanker stopped by IN, we will bomb one Indian city by air or by ballistic missiles"?

FYI, China is not likely to join the IPI pipeline since the cost to transport oil across Himalaya is too expensive and too far from eastern China, and China is more interested to build pipeline through Burma, whose construction will begin very soon.

 

[GHATAK]

Considering India doesn't even have the political will to pull off the N-deal, I really doubt she gets the gut to implement a maritime blockade in Indian Ocean. And I don't think IN is capable of choking China. Even if against slight odds it happened, what would India react to China's revenge policy of "for one tanker stopped by IN, we will bomb one Indian city by air or by ballistic missiles"?

I will tell only one thing, you know nothing about warfare. This is the silliest of comment of all. Do you think Indian Armed forces will keep quiet ? We will be soon deploying BMD based on green pine radar, which will destroy your ballistic missiles in outer space.

With the P-8i maritime surveillance aircraft, which will be stationed in Andamans, your SSK/SSN's will be destroyed even when they enter Indian ocean.

We will not only choke you, but destroy all your shipment to african countries and thereby inflicting heavy damage to your economy.

FYI, China is not likely to join the IPI pipeline since the cost to transport oil across Himalaya is too expensive and too far from eastern China, and China is more interested to build pipeline through Burma, whose construction will begin very soon.

Good. That one target less.

 

[Keysersoze]

I will tell only one thing, you know nothing about warfare. This is the silliest of comment of all. Do you think Indian Armed forces will keep quiet ? We will be soon deploying BMD based on green pine radar, which will destroy your ballistic missiles in outer space.

With the P-8i maritime surveillance aircraft, which will be stationed in Andamans, your SSK/SSN's will be destroyed even when they enter Indian ocean.

We will not only choke you, but destroy all your shipment to african countries and thereby inflicting heavy damage to your economy.



Good. That one target less.

WOW maybe you can deploy star destroyers and X-wings as well!!!!!!!! Given the success of current Indian projects/procurements you'd have to ask the Chinese to wait 10+years before they started a war.

Oh btw the USN won't get the P-8 till 2012 and India has yet to place a order.

 

[GHATAK]

WOW maybe you can deploy star destroyers and X-wings as well!!!!!!!! Given the success of current Indian projects/procurements you'd have to ask the Chinese to wait 10+years before they started a war.

Oh btw the USN won't get the P-8 till 2012 and India has yet to place a order.

I am talking about BMD which has already been tested twice in exoatmosphere and endoatmosphere.

Also, the phalcon's will be delivered this year, giving us immediate air superiority over china. All china has is numbers of Infentarymen.

The P-8i order will be placed upon Boing's response for RFP.

This should be of interest.

The Hindu : Front Page : Defence procurement policy revised

 

[mxiong]

Analysis: New Facility Offers Carrier Building Capability - SinoDefence.com

New Facility Offers Carrier Building Capability

By SinoDefence.com

Much of the attention on PRC’s aircraft carrier programme has been previously focused on the ex-Soviet Navy Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier Varyag, which was 70% competed when its construction stopped in 1992 and later bought by a Chinese company based in Macau for commercial purpose. The 67,500t vessel has been docked at the Dalian Shipyard in northern China since 2002, reportedly to be commissioned by the PLA Navy as a training carrier after its refurbishment finished. However, despite the completion of the hull restoration and removal of the scaffolding on the ship bridge in late 2006, the installation of weapons, electronics and propulsion has yet started. In fact, little activities onboard the vessel has been spotted since then, suggesting that the project may have been put on a halt.

At the same time, new details began to emerge on a possible indigenous aircraft carrier programme carried out by the CSSC Jiangnan Shipyard (Group) Corporation at its newly built Changxing Shipbuilding Base. Some sources suggested that the PRC is planning to build 1~2 medium-size (50,000~60,000t displacement) carriers at the Changxing facility, possibly based on the design of the Varyag. If this turns out to be true, the first Chinese indigenously-built aircraft carrier could be expected to join the PLA Navy service by 2015.

Changxing Shipbuilding Base

In 2003, China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) signed an agreement with the Shanghai City Council to relocate its subordinated shipyards from their current locations alongside the Huangpu River banks near city centre to Changxing, an Island off the coast of Shanghai. The purpose of the project was to provide valuable land spaces for Shanghai’s urban development, as well as to utilise the deep water coast of Changxing Island for construction of larger vessels.


An aerial view of the Jiangnan Changxing Shipbuilding Base (Source: Chinese Internet)

Construction of the new Changxing Shipbuilding Base began in June 2005. In the first phase of the US$3.6 billion project, four large dry docks, nine outfitting piers, and two cargo piers have been built along a 3.8km coastline. The facility became the new home for the CSSC Jiangnan Shipyard (Group) Corporation, which has been relocated from city centre to make way for Shanghai Expo 2010. With the new facility in place, the Jiangnan Shipyard will expand its shipbuilding capacity from the current 800,000 deadweight tons (DWT) a year to 4.5 million by 2010. The relocation has been completed by mid-2008 and the first vessel built by the facility is expected to be delivered by 2009.

In the second phase of development, the other CSSC two subsidiaries, Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding (Group) Corporation and Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Corporation, will add more shipyards along Changxing island's 8km coastline. By 2015, CSSC is expected to have an annual capacity of 8 million DWTs, half of China's current production capacity. By then, Changxing is expected to have become the world's largest shipyard. Shanghai will also become the world's largest shipbuilding base, tripling its capacity to 12 million DWTs by 2015. PRC Government has called on China to become the largest shipbuilder in the world, and the Changxing base is the most important step forward in this plan.

The Changxing Shipbuilding Base also offers the capability to build large naval vessels including aircraft carriers. The largest dockyard in the facility is 580m in length and 120m in width, enough to build a Varyag-size carrier. In fact, a scaled mock up of the Cahngxing Shipbuilding Base displayed by CSSC has revealed an aircraft carrier in one of the facility’s dry docks.


A scaled model of the Jiangnan Changxing Shipbuilding Base showing an aircraft carrier in a dry dock (Source: Chinese Internet)