The US's experimental 'lighting carriers' are 'much more capable' than China's current carriers, top US admiral says

[jhungary]

So fighter production is going to have to go up as well as technological modernization if you are to become competitive. More J-10s, J-16s, J-35s and more J-20s. Would doubling the numbers of these platforms be enough?

The problem is not at how many fighter China can produce, it lies in how many pilot China can train.

You will need to expand the entire network to increase the number of pilot you can train, you can produce 100 fighter a year, but then you will need to get 100 pilot and possible 300 crew to fly it. The personnel issue is the problem, not the fighter.

Can’t attack helicopters be deployed on LHDs, or at least use them as refueling and rearming points. LHD production is going to have to increase, such that you have at least a dozen to surround the island.

3 issues here

1.) There aren't that many Type-075 in service in 2025, which the game was set. We estimated 4. So you would have to balance on either using it as Air Interdiction platform or Amphibious Assault platform.
2.) LHA/LHD only useful if you are further away from your sphere of influence, it wouldn't make much difference if that is 500km from mainland...
3.) China lack of navalise attack helicopter. There is currently 3 attack helicopter China have, Z-9, Z-10 and Z-19 (Not counting Mi17 loaded with heaps of rocket) Only Z-9 and Z-19 are navalised. And they are light attack helicopter.

Your also going to need at lot more carrier battle groups as well as SSNs to keep an eye on all the areas you mentioned, at least 8 if not 10 to allow for downtime for some of them.

One of the parimeter for this game is US will not move fleet around from Europe/Middle East to Asia. Because otherwise US would have won outright as there are no way PLAN can withstand the entire might of USN. Whatever US have West of San Fransico, they can use.

Artillery range with ramjet shells using a 203 mm may be 200-300 km, fires from Fujian it maybe able to cover at least the entire west coast plus some of the northern west coast. Battleships with 8 inch guns like old ww2 battleships could provide shore bombardment fire support of the rest from around the island and be protected by the carrier battle groups and their air defense umbrellas

https://www.reddit.com/r/shittytechnicals/comments/w2573j

https://preview.redd.it/xrik7o084dc91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=4a5f47c64da590486bb7389881d99bd97d274c83

China Brings Back the Broadside

So, is this a viable way to deploy artillery at sea? I see no problem with it under the right conditions. More from David Axe.

newwars.wordpress.com

The narrowest point between China and Taiwan at Taiwan strait is 505km. If a Ramjet 203mm shell can fire at 200-300km, then it will hit water about halfway mark to Taiwan if you fire it from mainland China.

I don't think China have those kind of fire support ship.........

 

[FuturePAF]

The problem is not at how many fighter China can produce, it lies in how many pilot China can train.

You will need to expand the entire network to increase the number of pilot you can train, you can produce 100 fighter a year, but then you will need to get 100 pilot and possible 300 crew to fly it. The personnel issue is the problem, not the fighter.


3 issues here

1.) There aren't that many Type-075 in service in 2025, which the game was set. We estimated 4. So you would have to balance on either using it as Air Interdiction platform or Amphibious Assault platform.
2.) LHA/LHD only useful if you are further away from your sphere of influence, it wouldn't make much difference if that is 500km from mainland...
3.) China lack of navalise attack helicopter. There is currently 3 attack helicopter China have, Z-9, Z-10 and Z-19 (Not counting Mi17 loaded with heaps of rocket) Only Z-9 and Z-19 are navalised. And they are light attack helicopter.



One of the parimeter for this game is US will not move fleet around from Europe/Middle East to Asia. Because otherwise US would have won outright as there are no way PLAN can withstand the entire might of USN. Whatever US have West of San Fransico, they can use.



The narrowest point between China and Taiwan at Taiwan strait is 505km. If a Ramjet 203mm shell can fire at 200-300km, then it will hit water about halfway mark to Taiwan if you fire it from mainland China.

I don't think China have those kind of fire support ship.........

Taipei to Fuzhou is around 250/270 km per Google maps, how is it 505km?

 

[UKBengali]

lol at those Chinese and some of their foreign friends thinking that the Chinese ASBMs have any more than a miniscule chance of hitting an US aircraft carrier.

We have already discussed that the process of identifying and then tracking an unknown moving fleet hundreds of kms out at sea is very challenging, and we have not even talked about the soft and hard defences the fleet will be using to defend itself.

 

[FuturePAF]

The problem is not at how many fighter China can produce, it lies in how many pilot China can train.

You will need to expand the entire network to increase the number of pilot you can train, you can produce 100 fighter a year, but then you will need to get 100 pilot and possible 300 crew to fly it. The personnel issue is the problem, not the fighter.


3 issues here

1.) There aren't that many Type-075 in service in 2025, which the game was set. We estimated 4. So you would have to balance on either using it as Air Interdiction platform or Amphibious Assault platform.
2.) LHA/LHD only useful if you are further away from your sphere of influence, it wouldn't make much difference if that is 500km from mainland...
3.) China lack of navalise attack helicopter. There is currently 3 attack helicopter China have, Z-9, Z-10 and Z-19 (Not counting Mi17 loaded with heaps of rocket) Only Z-9 and Z-19 are navalised. And they are light attack helicopter.



One of the parimeter for this game is US will not move fleet around from Europe/Middle East to Asia. Because otherwise US would have won outright as there are no way PLAN can withstand the entire might of USN. Whatever US have West of San Fransico, they can use.



The narrowest point between China and Taiwan at Taiwan strait is 505km. If a Ramjet 203mm shell can fire at 200-300km, then it will hit water about halfway mark to Taiwan if you fire it from mainland China.

I don't think China have those kind of fire support ship.........

Any indication they are making headway in training more pilots and ground crew?

 

[etylo]

lol at those Chinese and some of their foreign friends thinking that the Chinese ASBMs have any more than a miniscule chance of hitting an US aircraft carrier.

We have already discussed that the process of identifying and then tracking an unknown moving fleet hundreds of kms out at sea is very challenging, and we have not even talked about the soft and hard defences the fleet will be using to defend itself.

Yeah, then why the US carrier run away as far away and fast as it could from Taiwan strait when China announced holding navy exercise including firing ballistic missiles at the sea area near Taiwan when Pelosi visited Taiwan few months ago ? Instead US carrier could arrogantly stayed near Taiwan to threaten China as they did in 1996 when China again held similar navy exercise in Taiwan strait. You think US carrier didnt know what it was facing and didnt know what it was doing ? If US carrier was not afraid of Chinese ballistic missiles, whey it chickened out in the confrontation ? This back down and away of US carrier from Taiwan was the direct cause of DPP party which is a proxy of US to lose favour in recent local elections. This test case proves the validity of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles, US navy commander apparently doesnt think the way you think of Chinese missiles.

 

[UKBengali]

Yeah, then why the US carrier run away as far away and fast as it could from Taiwan strait when China announced holding navy exercise including firing ballistic missiles at the sea area near Taiwan when Pelosi visited Taiwan few months ago ? Instead US carrier could arrogantly stayed near Taiwan to threaten China as they did in 1996 when China again held similar navy exercise in Taiwan strait. You think US carrier didnt know what it was facing and didnt know what it was doing ?

As it was not an actual war and there is a tiny chance of an accidental strike that could lead to a major crisis between the US and China.

Study the physics and you will understand the chances of a successful strike are miniscule.

 

[etylo]

As it was not an actual war and there is a tiny chance of an accidental strike that could lead to a major crisis between the US and China.

Study the physics and you will understand the chances of a successful strike are miniscule.

Then, they would stayed near Taiwan strait there as in 1996. As matter of fact, China had test fired DF 21D and DF 26 missiles at South China sea from thousands km away and hit moving ship target there under US watch couple years ago.

 

[UKBengali]

Then, they would stayed near Taiwan strait there as in 1996. As matter of fact, China had test fired DF 21D and DF 26 missiles at South China sea from thousands km away and hit moving ship target there under US watch couple years ago.

Did China know where the ship was initially and was that ship making evasive manouvres and trying to bring down the ASBM?

 

[etylo]

Did China know where the ship was initially and was that ship making evasive manouvres and trying to bring down the ASBM?

Of course, the ship position must be undisclosed and making unpredictable manouvres to the firing missiles, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of simulating a real situation test. Since that incident, the US navy has became ever serious of the threats of these ballistic missiles. The testing team probably know in the beginning where roughly the ship is, like in SCS area, as in real case, all US carriers are monitored by Chinese satellites and China knows roughly which certain region of the sea or ocean these carriers are at any time.

Chinese Long-Range Ballistic Missiles Struck Moving Ship In South China Sea: Report

The test could represent the first full demonstration of a real Chinese long-range anti-ship ballistic missile capability.

www.thedrive.com

 

[gambit]

Yeah, then why the US carrier run away as far away and fast as it could from Taiwan strait when China announced holding navy exercise including firing ballistic missiles at the sea area near Taiwan when Pelosi visited Taiwan few months ago ? Instead US carrier could arrogantly stayed near Taiwan to threaten China as they did in 1996 when China again held similar navy exercise in Taiwan strait. You think US carrier didnt know what it was facing and didnt know what it was doing ? If US carrier was not afraid of Chinese ballistic missiles, whey it chickened out in the confrontation ? This back down and away of US carrier from Taiwan was the direct cause of DPP party which is a proxy of US to lose favour in recent local elections. This test case proves the validity of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles, US navy commander apparently doesnt think the way you think of Chinese missiles.

This is -- to put it bluntly -- a stupid argument.

Currently, the US and China are not at war against each other. It would be foolish to be in the area of where China conduct live weapons tests regardless of how we think about the validity of China's claims of those weapons. This is about safety, not fear.

 

[etylo]

This is -- to put it bluntly -- a stupid argument.

Currently, the US and China are not at war against each other. It would be foolish to be in the area of where China conduct live weapons tests regardless of how we think about the validity of China's claims of those weapons. This is about safety, not fear.

You can always make excuse for your chicken out, why dont your carriers run away in 1996 when similar navy exercise was held by China in Taiwan strait including firing missiles.

What do you jerk, jhungary know of the situation for laughing out.

 

[jhungary]

Taipei to Fuzhou is around 250/270 km per Google maps, how is it 505km?

My bad, I misred the unit. I thought it was nautial mile

Any indication they are making headway in training more pilots and ground crew?

No idea, but seeing the average Chinese Pilot don't have as much hour than NATO (NATO country fly in between 220-250 hours a year, Chinese pilot did around 180), You can't just expand the program, because you will need to build new flight school, new trainer aircraft, new airfield and so on, seeing they don't have as much hours, means they can't support that many pilot in the air at the current program, unless all those parameter are addressed, getting more pilot trained will just dilute the quality of PLAAF.

This is -- to put it bluntly -- a stupid argument.

Currently, the US and China are not at war against each other. It would be foolish to be in the area of where China conduct live weapons tests regardless of how we think about the validity of China's claims of those weapons. This is about safety, not fear.

He is the kind of guys who saw the sign "Live Fire Exercise in the Area" and wander in because he had nothing better to do.

And then turn around and call everyone a "Coward" when someone walk away because of that caution sign......

 

[FuturePAF]

My bad, I misred the unit. I thought it was nautial mile

No idea, but seeing the average Chinese Pilot don't have as much hour than NATO (NATO country fly in between 220-250 hours a year, Chinese pilot did around 180), You can't just expand the program, because you will need to build new flight school, new trainer aircraft, new airfield and so on, seeing they don't have as much hours, means they can't support that many pilot in the air at the current program, unless all those parameter are addressed, getting more pilot trained will just dilute the quality of PLAAF.


He is the kind of guys who saw the sign "Live Fire Exercise in the Area" and wander in because he had nothing better to do.

And then turn around and call everyone a "Coward" when someone walk away because of that caution sign......

So in that case, ramjet artillery could work? Enough volume of firepower at the most reasonable price and all fired from the safety (and ease of resupply and maintenance) of the mainland. Similar shells or even standard Vulcano shells from ships with 5 inch guns off the coast could enable naval firepower to 90 km. These ships can also hit moving naval targets with the use of an IR sensor. So they can help enforce an exclusion zone with precision warning shots and fatal shots if the situation escalates.

Older ships in the PLAN, could be stripped of their conventional systems (but have an integrated mast installed for optimal situation awareness) and adding number of 5 inch guns could be put on them to turn them into “shore bombardment gun boats”. Leave room over the former helicopter hanger for a FL-3000N missile system to act as pout air defense, and room amidships for one Type 1130 CIWS on each side for gun based CIWS.

Put 4 of these modern 155 mm guns from the Type 055 on a stripped down Type 052B (a modern design with possibly enough deck space to accommodate the change relatively easily), and crank out two dozen of these ships, and you will have a mobile platform for shore bombardment and fire support for troops at various landing zones.

Leading up to a possible invasion these kinds of ships could also useful in PLAN doctrine that sees more PLAN marines deployed abroad and needing fire support without always having access to a LHD or a carrier to provide timely kinetic options.

The following video probably fits the taiwan situation best.

As for pilot training, the PLAAF did hire a lot of foreigners, until that program was exposed. If that is the limiting factor, they could make it a requirement of the best of their military officers to be evaluated for pilot training (similar to the Israeli military) and offered the opportunity (with a large salary and perks).

A lot of cheaper training platforms are probably needed by the PLAAF and PLANAF, so we will also know if they start building more of those as well.

 

[Abid123]

DF-21D is not low tech iskander ballistic missile. It can hit moving targets travel much faster speed.


Plus it DF-21D can't hit, we still have DF-17 HGV. Even US admit they can't hit HGV with unpredictable flight path. And don't troll and claim HGV can be shot down. Never proven so far.

Finally, your aegis is tested against a single ballistic missile. Never against a mass like a dozen or more. One ballistic DF-21D cost 1 million dollar. A dozen is only $12 million. An aircraft carrier is $7 billion. Absolutely worth the price tag.

U.S. fails to intercept test missile target

A U.S. warship failed to intercept a medium-range ballistic missile test target on Saturday, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said.

www.reuters.com

China should now for aim having the capability to strike US carriers anywhere in the world.

 

[jhungary]

So in that case, ramjet artillery could work? Enough volume of firepower at the most reasonable price and all fired from the safety (and ease of resupply and maintenance) of the mainland. Similar shells or even standard Vulcano shells from ships with 5 inch guns off the coast could enable naval firepower to 90 km. These ships can also hit moving naval targets with the use of an IR sensor. So they can help enforce an exclusion zone with precision warning shots and fatal shots if the situation escalates.

Maybe? I don't know, this is an experimental stuff, there are not enough data to know whether it would be effective anyway. I mean, I don't really know how much you can sustain those rounds, I imagine it wouldn't be the same as normal HE round, nor the CEP, nor the accuracy.

On the other hand, any artillery concentration would have been targeted by the Taiwanese with their own cruise missile and rocket artillery round, so I doubt I can put artillery on the coast that have the range to cover the beachhead. And even if I do, you are talking about 20 or so km ahead of the beachhead, that didn't give me a lot of coverage, any closer I would have to put the artillery inside the beachhead or in Penghu.. which I had already explained the difficulty before.

So I would put all my egg in that basket if you know what I mean.

Older ships in the PLAN, could be stripped of their conventional systems (but have an integrated mast installed for optimal situation awareness) and adding number of 5 inch guns could be put on them to turn them into “shore bombardment gun boats”. Leave room over the former helicopter hanger for a FL-3000N missile system to act as pout air defense, and room amidships for one Type 1130 CIWS on each side for gun based CIWS.

Well, unless you are planning on beaching those older ship and have them become gun fortress, I would say the Chinese have a problem supporting the current navy as it is, if we added a few of those older ship into the mix, it would probably make it worse. And how many 5 inch you think you can put on those, 4? 8? That's a lot of work for not much advantage if you ask me.

Put 4 of these modern 155 mm guns from the Type 055 on a stripped down Type 052B (a modern design with possibly enough deck space to accommodate the change relatively easily), and crank out two dozen of these ships, and you will have a mobile platform for shore bombardment and fire support for troops at various landing zones.

Leading up to a possible invasion these kinds of ships could also useful in PLAN doctrine that sees more PLAN marines deployed abroad and needing fire support without always having access to a LHD or a carrier to provide timely kinetic options.
View attachment 905214
View attachment 905215

Think you are probably going a bit off.......It's very hard to rebuild or re-task those ship, and then you have limited resource to support a limited amount of ship, I mean, technically it would have been easier to just reclaim a man made island and put a lot of 5 inch gun on it.

There is a reason why nobody did that to begin with, I would think that is a regress instead of advancement.

The following video probably fits the taiwan situation best.

As for pilot training, the PLAAF did hire a lot of foreigners, until that program was exposed. If that is the limiting factor, they could make it a requirement of the best of their military officers to be evaluated for pilot training (similar to the Israeli military) and offered the opportunity (with a large salary and perks).

A lot of cheaper training platforms are probably needed by the PLAAF and PLANAF, so we will also know if they start building more of those as well.

Those foreigners were for tactics familiarisation, not for training new cadre of pilots.

You need a combination of flight school, trainer aircraft, and trainer to train a class of pilot, and you will have to increase the system if you want to turn out more pilot. Technically you can farm it out to other country or have it commericalised, but then the quality of pilot will not be guaranteed.