F-35 vs Su-30/35

[boogieman]

In general terms the PLAN maybe comparable to the USN. Yet, when you get down to the serious nuts and bolts. Honestly, not much of a contest....
.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. The PLAN have begun fielding an extremely dangerous fleet of surface vessels, but their subs have been historically woeful (although I hear they are making progress now) and their carrier capability is still in its infancy. Taking the PLAN on inside the first island chain would be extremely unpleasant due to the proximity to the Chinese mainland, but as you move further out from that the capability drops off dramatically.

In any confrontation the US would still be able to decimate their surface fleet, mainly through the application of strategic airpower and submarines (feed them a steady diet of Maritime Strike Tomahawk, LRASM and Mk48 torpedoes), but it would come at a price. I suspect the USN would want to keep its carriers in deeper water to avoid the heaviest concentrations of Chinese AShMs and subs. So yes, they are a peer player close to home, but still way behind further afield.

[Corsair1963]

In general terms the PLAN maybe comparable to the USN. Yet, when you get down to the serious nuts and bolts. Honestly, not much of a contest....
.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. The PLAN have begun fielding an extremely dangerous fleet of surface vessels, but their subs have been historically woeful (although I hear they are making progress now) and their carrier capability is still in its infancy. Taking the PLAN on inside the first island chain would be extremely unpleasant due to the proximity to the Chinese mainland, but as you move further out from that the capability drops off dramatically.

In any confrontation the US would still be able to decimate their surface fleet, mainly through the application of strategic airpower and submarines (feed them a steady diet of Maritime Strike Tomahawk, LRASM and Mk48 torpedoes), but it would come at a price. I suspect the USN would want to keep its carriers in deeper water to avoid the heaviest concentrations of Chinese AShMs and subs. So yes, they are a peer player close to home, but still way behind further afield.

Really, you want to compare Aegis Type Destroyers, Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, SSN's, Amphibious Assault Ships, Stealth Fighters, MPA, etc. etc. etc.

Most of those types are markedly better than their Chinese Counterparts. Plus, the US and her Allies are far more options to maneuver. Chinese Forces on the otherhand would be bottled up in port or from bases in China.

[weasel1962]

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. The PLAN have begun fielding an extremely dangerous fleet of surface vessels, but their subs have been historically woeful (although I hear they are making progress now) and their carrier capability is still in its infancy. Taking the PLAN on inside the first island chain would be extremely unpleasant due to the proximity to the Chinese mainland, but as you move further out from that the capability drops off dramatically.

In any confrontation the US would still be able to decimate their surface fleet, mainly through the application of strategic airpower and submarines (feed them a steady diet of Maritime Strike Tomahawk, LRASM and Mk48 torpedoes), but it would come at a price. I suspect the USN would want to keep its carriers in deeper water to avoid the heaviest concentrations of Chinese AShMs and subs. So yes, they are a peer player close to home, but still way behind further afield.

In terms of surface fleet, practically the entire PLA navy is within LRASM range of some land base esp Taiwan and probably tracked consistently. Just a question of how fast it can be taken out.

Its the sub fleet that is a bit more difficult since they are located in underground bases. But again, the USAF knows where the openings are...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... bee47d6312

The real reason why there's all the hoo-ha about the chinese fleet is budget justification.

[boogieman]

In general terms the PLAN maybe comparable to the USN. Yet, when you get down to the serious nuts and bolts. Honestly, not much of a contest....
.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. The PLAN have begun fielding an extremely dangerous fleet of surface vessels, but their subs have been historically woeful (although I hear they are making progress now) and their carrier capability is still in its infancy. Taking the PLAN on inside the first island chain would be extremely unpleasant due to the proximity to the Chinese mainland, but as you move further out from that the capability drops off dramatically.

In any confrontation the US would still be able to decimate their surface fleet, mainly through the application of strategic airpower and submarines (feed them a steady diet of Maritime Strike Tomahawk, LRASM and Mk48 torpedoes), but it would come at a price. I suspect the USN would want to keep its carriers in deeper water to avoid the heaviest concentrations of Chinese AShMs and subs. So yes, they are a peer player close to home, but still way behind further afield.

Really, you want to compare Aegis Type Destroyers, Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, SSN's, Amphibious Assault Ships, Stealth Fighters, MPA, etc. etc. etc.

Most of those types are markedly better than their Chinese Counterparts. Plus, the US and her Allies are far more options to maneuver. Chinese Forces on the otherhand would be bottled up in port or from bases in China.

Sooo you agree with me then? I acknowledged all of that - they do not have the capacity to take on the USN in the middle of the Pacific but - like I said - inside that first island chain (and possibly the 2nd) they are dangerous. Ships like the Renhai and Luyang class appear quite competitive with their American (Aegis) counterparts on a technological level, and nearer the coastline they could bring more of their smaller Corvettes and Frigates to bear. On top of this, their diesel subs - especially the Song and Yuan class SSK's - would create major headaches for any USN vessel (surface or sub) that strayed too close and - again - they would be employing all of this under cover of homeland air, missile and ISR assets.

That said, I already acknowledged that the antidote to much of this problem comes down to liberal doses of Maritime Tomahawk, LRASM and Mk48 CBASS so it sounds as though you are in agreement

[milosh]

I don't think today's Burk or Tico can compare with latest Chinese destoyers. This still use parabolic radar to track targets

Modern Chinese destroyers use PESA or even AESA (Type 055) radars.

There is also new tech Chinese are pushing, like railguns and permanent magnetic engines. USN still don't have railgun testbed ship, PLAN have, and Chinese design can be used on ships without big capacitor storage because new diesel engines are also superb generators, they are pushing PM engines for military boats, Zumwalt first was design to have such engines but they were replaced with more conventional, R&D would be high and it would need lot of neodymium which could be problem if China reduce or ban export.

PLAN right now look similar to Martian Congressional Republic Navy from Expanse. Nice very capable new ships with superior tech but they still lack in numbers especially in heavy hitters.

So it would take at least one decade for PLAN of this grow to power which can tackle USN further from Chinese coasts:

[ricnunes]

I don't think today's Burk or Tico can compare with latest Chinese destoyers. This still use parabolic radar to track targets

Modern Chinese destroyers use PESA or even AESA (Type 055) radars.

All Ticonderoga Cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight I, II and IIA use the AN/SPY-1D radar which is a PESA radar.
Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight III will be fitted with AN/SPY-6 radar which is AESA. Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers will be retrofitted with the AN/SPY-6 (AESA) radar.

The Chinese have lots of 'ketcup' (pun intended) to do in order to reach the USA at this radar level as well as regarding the vast of other major military technologies!

There is also new tech Chinese are pushing, like railguns and permanent magnetic engines. USN still don't have railgun testbed ship, PLAN have, and Chinese design can be used on ships without big capacitor storage because new diesel engines are also superb generators, they are pushing PM engines for military boats, Zumwalt first was design to have such engines but they were replaced with more conventional, R&D would be high and it would need lot of neodymium which could be problem if China reduce or ban export.

PLAN right now look similar to Martian Congressional Republic Navy from Expanse. Nice very capable new ships with superior tech but they still lack in numbers especially in heavy hitters.

So it would take at least one decade for PLAN of this grow to power which can tackle USN further from Chinese coasts:

I would take Chinese claims in this and also regarding other similar claims with a "huge mountain of salt"! So far the only working Railgun that I ever saw firing successfully during tests were the ones built in the USA.

[boogieman]

All Ticonderoga Cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight I, II and IIA use the AN/SPY-1D radar which is a PESA radar.
Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight III will be fitted with AN/SPY-6 radar which is AESA. Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers will be retrofitted with the AN/SPY-6 (AESA) radar.

The Chinese have lots of 'ketcup' (pun intended) to do in order to reach the USA at this radar level as well as regarding the vast of other major military technologies!

By my count the PLAN has 14 x Luyang DDG and 1 x Renhai CG (+5 in fitout), which makes for 15 major surface combatants at a comparable (& in some cases higher) level of technological sophistication to US Aegis vessels, with dozens of smaller or less modern vessels behind them that would probably be used as ASW skimmers and AShM launchers. By comparison, the US 7th Fleet has (I believe) 3 x Ticonderoga CG and 7 x Arleigh Burke DDG in theatre, so it's a pretty respectable fleet we're talking about, and one that is growing rapidly.

While their SSN fleet is still very rudimentary, their newer SSK's are a real worry - just ask any Australian or Swedish submariner what a modern SSK can do to an unsuspecting vessel that gets too close. This is especially true in shallower water/choke points where they can lie in wait with the diesels off in near total silence, masked by ambient noise levels.



The fact that the PLAN have over 30 of them (vs ~4 or 5 SSNs in the US 7th Fleet?) is probably reason enough to keep USN CVN's out in the deep blue stuff. I guess what I am trying to get at here is that comparing the whole of the USN and PLAN ship for ship is misleading. One navy is designed to operate anywhere on the planet and in many places at once, while the other is heavily tied to operating alongside its homeland support assets (but is well equipped to do so).

[boogieman]

For those interested, the following gives a pretty good idea of what a sub using heavyweight torpedoes like Mk48, Yu-6 or USET-80 can do to a surface combatant. The bubble jet effect frequently causes the vessel to snap in half, a level of destruction most anti-ship missiles could never hope to inflict. At best the hull is punctured below the waterline, causing rapid flooding. I take it this is why most SINKEX shoots tend to save the torpedo(s) as a coup de gras...

[Corsair1963]

While, diesel submarines (SSK) are clearly a threat to surface warships. Yet, they're hardly invincible either.....


As a matter of fact in general many of the exercise again major naval units like Aircraft Carriers. Have ROE that highly favor the submarine. Just like weaker opponents in Air Exercises.



In short Chinese SSK's are not nearly the threat many make them out to be! Of course many factors would have to be taken into account.

[boogieman]

As a matter of fact in general many of the exercise again major naval units like Aircraft Carriers. Have ROE that highly favor the submarine.

Not always. As you'll see in the first video I posted, the USN surface vessels continued to shadow the Collins class SSK even when it was supposed to have been allowed to disappear so that they could then go about the process of re-acquiring it. Despite this, the SSK used some nearby islands to disappear anyway only to re-appear (at will) within point-blank torpedo range.

In short Chinese SSK's are not nearly the threat many make them out to be! Of course many factors would have to be taken into account.

They absolutely are a very serious threat in shallower/near coastal waters and/or near choke points aka inside the first island chain (as I said before). The primary limitation of these boats is their inability to achieve the needed submerged speed and endurance to actively pursue USN vessels undetected. That is why the PLAN has so many of them - rather than chase their targets like Soviet SSN/SSGNs could they simply send dozens of SSKs out to sea and use them as smart, mobile, reusable sea mines. When used in this fashion they would be extremely difficult to find and kill, because they would be in an immediately advantageous acoustic position even compared to hunter-killer SSNs like the LA and Virginia class, who couldn't sit around in such an ultra-quiet state. This is mainly due to the nature of their mission and some of the acoustic disadvantages imposed by nuclear propulsion.

FWIW there is a former USN sonarman-turned-gamer on YouTube called Jive Turkey who does an excellent job of covering some of these concepts, and playing them out (albeit in massively simplified form) on the "Cold Waters" PC game. He has served on both LA class and Ohio class subs and has a wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9bMgC ... sK9GtzM5dQ

He's released so much content now that I wouldn't know where to begin finding the relevant stuff but he has some very interesting insights on just what modern submarines are capable of.

[Corsair1963]

Not always. As you'll see in the first video I posted, the USN surface vessels continued to shadow the Collins class SSK when it was supposed to have been allowed to disappear, so that they could then go about the process of re-acquiring it. Despite this, the SSK disappeared at will anyway only to re-appear (also at will) within point-blank torpedo range.

SSK's have considerable threats to worry about from other SSK's and the much faster SSN's! Plus, let's not forget all of those Surface Combatants including Corvettes, Frigates, and Destroyers. That are all equipped with ASW Helicopters.

Sorry, in the real world SSK's just don't appear and disappear with ease.....

They absolutely are a very serious threat in shallower/near coastal waters and/or near choke points (as I said before). The primary limitation of these boats is their inability to achieve the needed submerged speed and endurance to actively pursue USN vessels undetected. That is why the PLAN has so many of them - rather than chase their targets like Soviet SSN/SSGNs did they simply put dozens of them out to sea and use them as smart, mobile sea mines. When used in this fashion they would be extremely difficult to find and kill, because they would be in an immediately advantageous acoustic position even compared to hunter-killer SSNs like the LA and Virginia class, who couldn't sit around in such an ultra-quiet state due to both the nature of their mission and some of the acoustic disadvantages imposed by nuclear propulsion.

Surface Action and Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups don't operate within the Littorals. Just waiting for an SSK to pick them off. Plus, of those choke points that you often bring up. You ever think that during times of conflict or war. That Allied SSK's wouldn't be operating within those areas too! Along with MPA like the P-1, P-3, P-8, and drones like the MQ-4C Triton....

Also, as long as you bring up Chinese SSK's. You really want to compare PLAN Kilo, Song, and Yuan Classes of Diesel Submarines. Compared to Japanese (Oyashio & Sōryū), South Korean (KSS-II & KSS-III), and Australian (Collins and future Attack Class) Boats....

Which, is not to say the PLAN Submarine Force is no threat. Yet, they aren't likely to success in just about any scenario you could come up with either....

[boogieman]

Sorry, in the real world SSK's just don't appear and disappear with ease.....

Many of them can if you're unlucky enough to sail close to one... which was my whole point. Don't take my word for it - ask any current or recently serving submariner and you'll hear much the same thing.

Surface Action and Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups don't operate within the Littorals. Just waiting for an SSK to pick them off.

Correct, you're aggressively agreeing with me again

Plus, of those choke points that you often bring up. You ever think that during times of conflict or war. That Allied SSK's wouldn't be operating within those areas too! Along with MPA like the P-1, P-3, P-8, and drones like the MQ-4C Triton....

Also, as long as you bring up Chinese SSK's. You really want to compare PLAN Kilo, Song, and Yuan Classes of Diesel Submarines. Compared to Japanese (Oyashio & Sōryū), South Korean (KSS-II & KSS-III), and Australian (Collins and future Attack Class) Boats....

MPA ops would be heavily restricted in the 1st island chain that I am referring to. The airspace would be extremely contested and inhospitable to such vulnerable aircraft. You can invoke allied SSKs if you like, but that is shifting the goal posts a little. Nevertheless we would need every sub we could get our hands on to sanitize that part of the ocean, because the PLAN is on the way to 40 modern SSKs, with close to 70 subs in total... all devoted to that one piece of ocean. If we want to talk about allies you also need to consider that the ROK would need to keep an eye on NK's ~70 odd (mostly mini) subs. They might suck but quantity has a quality all of its own.

Which, is not to say the PLAN Submarine Force is no threat. Yet, they aren't likely to success in just about any scenario you could come up with either....

Depends on how you define success. They are certainly capable of inflicting some very unpleasant losses (both to our subs and surface vessels) on anything that crossed their path. Would their losses be heavier than ours? Sure. It wouldn't be a fun time trying to root them all out though. Again, don't take it from me - ask an expert.

[milosh]

All Ticonderoga Cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight I, II and IIA use the AN/SPY-1D radar which is a PESA radar.
Arleigh Burke destroyers Flight III will be fitted with AN/SPY-6 radar which is AESA. Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers will be retrofitted with the AN/SPY-6 (AESA) radar.

The Chinese have lots of 'ketcup' (pun intended) to do in order to reach the USA at this radar level as well as regarding the vast of other major military technologies![.quote]

Those are longer wave search radars, I wrote about shorter wave target tracking radars those are still old parabolic radars, here is render of Flight III you can clear see two of those radars are present:
https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... ghtiii.jpg

[boogieman]

We have strayed well and truly into OT land so I made a new thread for us here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=56951

[Corsair1963]

Depends on how you define success. They are certainly capable of inflicting some very unpleasant losses (both to our subs and surface vessels) on anything that crossed their path. Would their losses be heavier than ours? Sure. It wouldn't be a fun time trying to root them all out though. Again, don't take it from me - ask an expert.

Honestly, wouldn't be much of a contest. As the US and her Allies would bottle up the PLAN in their ports. While, our navies would cut off all imports and exports to and from the Chinese Mainland.


This would be nothing short of devastating to the Chinese Economy and little they could do about it....