PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

[blueblood]

PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

China would have to sacrifice up to 40% of its naval fleet in an attempt to sink a supercarrier like the USS Gerald R Ford in a campaign, according to a report from the Moscow-based Military-Industrial Courier.

China currently possesses several effective weapons systems that could be used against a US carrier battle group, including its DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles and 12 guided-missile destroyers. The country's two Type 051C and six Type 052C destroyers are all equipped with anti-ship missiles such as the YJ-83, C-805 and YJ-62, and they would also pose a serious threat against US carriers within the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, China has purchased four Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Moskit SSM P-270 anti-ship missiles from Russia, the report said.

Aside from the Liaoning, the country's first aircraft carrier, the PLA Navy currently has 15 Type 054A frigates carrying HQ-16 surface-to-air missile within its vertical launching system. With the capability to defend the Chinese fleet against the US carrier-based aircraft, the Type 054A is able to sink enemy vessels with its C-803 anti-ship missile as well.

If a US carrier battle group were to enter the waters of the Chinese coast, the PLA Navy could also deploy its 10 Type 056 corvettes and 40 Type 022 missile boats to fight in guerrilla warfare at sea against the US Navy, the report said. Both vessels able to launch anti-ship missiles such as YJ-83 and C-803 and the United States Navy would lose 10% of its strength in the region if one of its carriers were to be sunk.

However, the PLA Navy would not be able to sink a US aircraft carrier easily. According to Forbes magazine, several countermethods have been developed by the US Navy to defend its aircraft carriers from Chinese attacks. While long-range unmanned aerial vehicles are able to destroy Chinese missile facilities, F-35 fighters with a combat range of 200 and 300 nautical miles enables the US ships to fight without entering the Chinese coastline.

The Military-Industrial Courier estimated that between 30%-40% of China's total naval strength would be lost to simply destroy one US carrier. Meanwhile, the biggest weakness for the US Navy in a potential conflict with the PLA Navy would be how to deploy its 11 carriers, 88 surface combat vessels, 55 Littoral Combat Ships and 31 amphibious assault ships to the Western Pacific in a short period of time, the report said.

PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

 

[rock127]

US has 12 AC(10 in service and 2 rserve) and it would take 2.5 AC to destroy entire PLA Navy?

 

[blueblood]

US has 12 AC(10 in service and 2 rserve) and it would take 2.5 AC to destroy entire PLA Navy?

According to a Russian think tank it is a very real possibility. @Cadian, mate I couldn't find "Military-Industrial Courier" site. Some help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Sylex21]

These sorts of calculations are impossible to make. The report is valueless, any other number could have been substituted for the "40%". There are hundreds of variables in a war and this report's conclusions are based on essentially nothing but an opinion.

 

[blueblood]

These sorts of calculations are impossible to make. The report is valueless, any other number could have been substituted for the "40%". There are hundreds of variables in a war and this report's conclusions are based on essentially nothing but an opinion.

Take a look around. This is a defence forum, almost everything that is stated here is an opinion, like F-22 is finest thing ever to fly and a 900 kg missile with obsolete trajectory cannot be intercepted and will sink an aircraft carrier.

 

[no smoking]

US has 12 AC(10 in service and 2 rserve) and it would take 2.5 AC to destroy entire PLA Navy?

That may be true if PLA navy is stupid enough to challenge US navy in the area where PLAAF can't protect it.

 

[Cadian]

According to a Russian think tank it is a very real possibility. @Cadian, mate I couldn't find "Military-Industrial Courier" site. Some help will be greatly appreciated.

Hi.

I think I have found the article:
Морское могущество Китая | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»

It has a title
China's sea power
After 20 years, The Celestial would become the mistress of the seas

Итак, имея в своем распоряжении определенное количество современных кораблей с многоканальными ЗРК и противокорабельными комплексами средней и малой дальности, Китай может сформировать до шести корабельных ударных групп или одну авианосную группу и две-три корабельные ударные группы. Во взаимодействии с атомными подводными лодками и морской авиацией эти силы способны разгромить одну авианосную группу США. При этом потери китайской стороны могут составить до 30–40 процентов корабельного состава.

So, having at its disposal a certain number of modern ships with multi-channel SAMs and anti-ship medium and short range missiles, China can create up to six naval battle groups or one aircraft carrier group and two or three naval battle groups. In cooperation with the nuclear submarines and naval aviation, these forces can defeat a single US aircraft carrier group. In this case, the loss of the Chinese side can be up to 30-40 percent of their ships.

Sometimes analyses on this site looks sane, sometimes odd. Depends on the author.

 

[blueblood]

Hi.

I think I have found the article:
Морское могущество Китая | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»

It has a title
China's sea power
After 20 years, The Celestial would become the mistress of the seas





Sometimes analyses on this site looks sane, sometimes odd. Depends on the author.

Thanks man. You are an asset to this forum.

 

[tarunraju]

Yet neither US Navy nor PLAN will test these assumptions in a naval exercise / war-games. The loser will be embarrassed too much, and the top-brass of the losing navy will lose its jobs.

 

[blueblood]

Some salient points of the article posted by Cadian.

1) The most recent include multipurpose nuclear submarines 093. The Navy has two such units, and another under construction. Up to 2020 is expected to be commissioned five type 095, which are modernizing type 093.

According to its characteristics correspond to those ships Soviet submarine project 671RTM (Victor-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). They entered service of the Soviet Navy in the early 80s, and now decommissioning of the Russian Navy as outdated.

Type 93 = Victor III.

2) Among the non-nuclear submarines national construction should be noted one type NNS 041 similar Russian submarine Project 636, and three types of 039. 041-class submarines will be built three more.

These ships are in their tactical and technical data are consistent with the world standards and are able to deal effectively with modern nuclear submarines - the US "Los Angeles" and the Russian Project 971 (Akula).

Conventional submarines of PLAN namely Kilo, Type 39 and Type 41 are capable of dealing with LA class and Akula.

3) In general, the Chinese Navy submarine force, even in the medium term will have a very limited capacity to conduct combat operations in the ocean zone. However, given their large number, they will be able to withstand (albeit at the cost of large losses) as submarines and surface ships likely opponent in conjunction with the surface forces and naval aviation in the coastal areas of China.

4) Liaoning AC

J-15 to its characteristics, especially radio-electronic equipment and weapons system, is significantly inferior to the American F-18E (F). Secondly, has no planes, no helicopters, AWACS, EW and Intelligence, which significantly limits its capabilities. Finally, their means of self-defense virtually none. In particular, the air defense system is able to ensure the destruction of a single air targets, reaching at low altitudes.

Liaoning will most likely perish in a direct confrontation with a USN CBG but has reasonable chances when used in conjunction with land based air power along with AWACS.

5) Type 52C has modern anti ship and anti air capabilities and should be able to hold on its own against any? adversary.

6) Type 54As have pretty decent capbilities

7) China can create up to six naval battle groups or one aircraft carrier group and two or three naval strike groups. In cooperation with the nuclear submarines and naval aviation, these forces can defeat the one US aircraft carrier group. In this case, the loss of the Chinese side can be up to 30-40 percent of ships.

In cooperation with non-nuclear submarines and naval aviation forces capable of destroying these five - seven submarines of the "Los Angeles" and surface ships to 15-20 class destroyer, frigate in the first 10-15 days of warfare.

The loss of the Chinese navy may be up to 30 percent of NNS, frigates and 30-35 percent to 40 percent of missile boats.

7) Russian navy (Pacific fleet?) as of today is superior to PLAN because of it's nuclear submarines but going by current trends in both China and Russia this scenario could very well be reversed after 7-12 years due to rapid Chinese shipbuiding.


Turned out to be not so salient.

 

[Sylex21]

Take a look around. This is a defence forum, almost everything that is stated here is an opinion, like F-22 is finest thing ever to fly and a 900 kg missile with obsolete trajectory cannot be intercepted and will sink an aircraft carrier.

Yes to some extent sure, but those are educated guesses based on facts and realistic comparisons. The difference is to what degree. In the case of the 40% fleet carrier sinking, it's been taken to the level of absurdity.

 

[blueblood]

Yes to some extent sure, but those are educated guesses based on facts and realistic comparisons.

Looks like you are yet to encounter Ghazi Pakis.

The difference is to what degree. In the case of the 40% fleet carrier sinking, it's been taken to the level of absurdity.

I agree but this is exactly why there should be discussion even if it may sound absurd. Read the original article and you will see that it is making some good points in favour of and against PLAN's capabilities.