China Wants a Big Fleet of 5 Aircraft Carriers by 2030

[Beijingwalker]

Yes, the important lesson is that -- do not follow Russia.

By now, Beijing essentially abandoned Russia and by that, I mean whatever remnants of military doctrines from Russia the PLA have -- is gone. The Parade Line Army (PLA) is on their own. An amphibious operation is categorically different than a land invasion and the PLA have no experience in that.

lOl, this is all fantasy talk, when US is going to do something about this reality?

 

[TheSouthIndian]

Indian are shitting in their pants as they read this thread.

 

[Harbyharb]

Yeikkesss...PESA v AESA. Depending on what kind of data you are looking for, PESA will work just fine.

For the benefit of the lay readers out there...Bear with me...

When a return is considered to be a 'target', that signal is assigned a physical memory space.

With a mechanical array, the kind that physically move side-side as for decades we know of radar, that physical memory space is not updated until the next movement or sweep. So for the traditional mechanical array, when they say the radar can track multiple targets, that is a false tracking capability. The radar computer simply remembers which target is in which memory space then wait until the array move to the actual airborne target to reassess all the usual resolutions:

- Altitude
- Airspeed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The reason why there is a limit of how many actual targets can the traditional mechanical radar can monitor is because tracking is so critical that a target cannot be assigned a virtual memory space but an actual physical location in whatever memory the computer has. A physical location is %99.999 non-corruptible. The more physical memory the more targets the computer can assign targets to that capacity. If a target is assigned a virtual memory space, its critical data (above) can be moved from module to module and that is not desirable. Maybe to track birds or insects, but not for airliners or incoming ballistic warheads.

Now we come to Electronic Scanning Array or ESA.

A PESA array can produce only one beam, but that beam is so agile that any target in any physical memory space can be updated almost instantaneously. That mean for the same memory capacity, an ESA system can keep track in %99 real time more targets in more physical memory spaces. How many depends on the radar computer's processing capability. Because that single beam can move from target to target within millisecs or faster, the radar computer can even use virtual memory to track even more targets, but really not a good idea even with being an ESA system.

An AESA array can produce multiple beams, in theory, but in practice, that depends on the radar computer's processing capability. Both sub-types works the same as far as memory management goes, but if the radar computer cannot process more than 12 targets, for example, then there is no point in creating 12 beams no matter how many targets out there.

Methods for Adaptive Radar Resources Management

Hosted by IEEE AP-MTT Chapter

ece.osu.edu

Advances in electronic components have driven the trend in development of adaptive and highly configurable sensors, such as the electronically steered array antenna. The electronically steered array antenna enables an agile radar beam, allowing dynamic allocation of a radar system’s time/energy budget between multiple radar tasks. This creates the radar resource management problem,...​

So which situation would a PESA system works good enough? AWACS is one. AWACS are essentially monitoring missions over large areas, air and surface. Air defense is where multiple agile beams are required because this situation always have multiple attackers with constantly changing resolutions (the four items above) and within small areas, as in less than 100 miles to scan.

The implication here is that a well designed PESA system can equal or even outperform an AESA competitor. Not only that, depends on what kind of targets, a PESA which is a lower cost alternative will work just fine.

I know. I'm just grossly generalizing the differences in technological level. In terms of raw range at which a PESA can acquire a valid track AESA and PESA may not necessarily differ.

But still, countries all ceaselessly pursue AESA as a definitive trend given its superior peformance in EW intensive environment as well as potential for integrating ESM and ECM, in conjunction with CNC with modern systems integration that unifies a ship's acquired intelligence via different sensors. So much so that even conceptually and doctrinally backward warships like Indian P14/15s that's still highly remiscent of Soviet BRKs are equipped with IPMS, AISDN, all connected to EMCCA which enables a very modern ability to detect, assess, classify, and act against identified threats.

While it is true that a well designed PESA system, or rather, a well designed system with PESA are still competitive, in a future where EW environment is bound to be more chaotic and complex, where large radar apertures are required to not just perform traditional search and track roles, facing against more and more sea-skim and low observable threats, the trend to advance toward adopting AESA is inevitable.

I'm sure you already know that, this is just for future readers in case somebody uses this quote to defend certain dirctions for arms development, or the the lack thereof.

 

[Harbyharb]

Yes, the important lesson is that -- do not follow Russia.

By now, Beijing essentially abandoned Russia and by that, I mean whatever remnants of military doctrines from Russia the PLA have -- is gone. The Parade Line Army (PLA) is on their own. An amphibious operation is categorically different than a land invasion and the PLA have no experience in that.

To be fair, nobody have experience in mass amphibious operations in today's multi-domain environment, left alone potentially against a peer/superior force.

But at least they are devising doctrines and tactics and are not at all shy to invest the resources and manhours to repeatedly test and refine them, which is highly reminiscent of inter-war period USN playing with carriers in Fleet Problem exercises. This deja vu really gives complicated feelings to a old dinosaur like me.

 

[Developereo]

If the US directly targets the Chinese mainland, will China retaliate by targeting the US mainland or Guam (airbase)?

Does China have the capability to do so (submarines) without using ICBM?

Will an ICBM automatically trigger nuclear retaliation since the target doesn't know if it carries a non-nuclear payload?

The US has said that a hit on an air craft carrier will trigger a nuclear retaliation so presumable the same applies to an airbase on land.

 

[ety]

5 USN, 2 JMSDF, 1 RAN carriers in Pacific alongside new USAF, USMC deployment in Philippines and Australia will pretty much stop PLAN foray beyond Taiwan and put reverse pressure on 9 dash line.

We can field 2 carriers and ASBM, brahmos batteries to choke lines from A&N, minicoy and agatti island.

Our strength area will be ship to ship attacks at extended range(800 km to 2000 km), something which others lack...so provide air cover to our flotilla and let us release the ER javelines...

Japan's strong area is air cover from ships and their excellent fleet of SSKs, more suited to SCS depths than big SSNs.

A quad alliance seems be becoming a necessity.

Such a tying down of China means they can just spare a few cruisers, destroyers for Indian ocean.

We can match them 1 for 1 away from us like Gulf of Aden etc and have local superiority near coast if they try.

While PLAN will hold local dominance near coast, taiwan and harass small neighbors, they will not be able to counter 8 carriers facing them.

Pretty much stops them from being a globally deployed force and reduce ships they can throw at us in Indian ocean.

Secures our supply lines.

We will take your Indian fleet anywhere anytime, lol, don't flatter yourselves too much.

 

[BobBiswas]

lOl, this is all fantasy talk, when US is going to do something about this reality?

What does this has to do with this topic?

 

[Beijingwalker]

What does this has to do with this topic?

Some argue India and US can block China's sea lanes due to China's weak navy, that's their fantasy, the reality is this.

 

[BobBiswas]

Some argue India and US can block China's sea lanes due to China's weak navy, that's their fantasy, the reality is this.

India and US CAN indeed block China's sea lanes and it has more to do with geography and nothing to do with navy. No amount of navy can fix a geographical reality. India can deploy mobile area denial missiles on Andoman and Nicobar islands and there is nothing Chinese navy can do about it. Those missiles can blockade shipping traffic. To make things more fun, India can deploy mines. You can keep as much of navy as you want, it will be useless.

 

[Beijingwalker]

India and US CAN indeed block China's sea lanes and it has more to do with geography and nothing to do with navy. No amount of navy can fix a geographical reality.

It's just your fantasy, never happened and never will happen. China is still the world dominant maritime nation and US and India can do nothing about it. and China now builds 70% of the ships in the world, India and US can only have a bleaker future in maritime power struggle.

 

[Beijingwalker]

India and US CAN indeed block China's sea lanes and it has more to do with geography

Does India have a better geography? why not even a single Indian port made into top 25 biggest ports in the world?

World biggest ports rankings

 

[BobBiswas]

Does India have a better geography? why not even a single Indian port made into top 25 biggest ports in the world?

What does it have to do with blockading Chinese lanes? Why India needs to have multiple ports to do that?

 

[BobBiswas]

It's just your fantasy, never happened and never will happen. China is still the world dominant maritime nation and US and India can do nothing about it. and China now builds 70% of the ships in the world, India and US can only have a bleaker future in maritime power struggle.

Its a geographical reality. Mellaca choke point is a very well known vulnerability. You can deny it but it wont change a thing. No amount of navy can fix it.

 

[Beijingwalker]

What does it have to do with blockading Chinese lanes? Why India needs to have multiple ports to do that?

Cause you can't block them, that's why they can become this big, try if you don't believe.

 

[Beijingwalker]

Its a geographical reality. Mellaca choke point is a very well known vulnerability. You can deny it but it wont change a thing. No amount of navy can fix it.

China is already dominating the maritime trade, US sanctions China over Huawei, EVs..., China's maritime global domination is much bigger than Huawei and EVs, why stops US from doing anything to cut China's this global domination?