What's new

Sleeping dragon no more: China about to replace US as strongest naval power and Washington is too la

Don't let U.S. defense industry marketing fool you with fancy acronyms.

The use of tactical data-links (i.e. encrypted, jam-resistant radio communications) to network disparate platforms together have been around for 40 years.

Go ahead and do some research on JTIDS, MIDS, and Link 16.

The first JTIDS communications terminals were large and were installed only on AWACS and warships to provide radar tracking and targeting information to Air Force F-15C and Navy F-14D interceptors.

As technology got better, the MIDS program was created to put small, lightweight Link 16 terminals on U.S. and participating allies’ fighter aircraft.

Today, NIFC-CA seeks to bring even small missiles (like SM-6 and LRASM) into the network along with drones, aircraft, and ships merging vast amounts of information together into one common operating picture.

But make no mistake. It is still just radio communications.

Do you know what else is highly advanced radio communications? Huawei's 5G.

In fact, Huawei's gigabit-level wireless speeds available to civilians make the military Link 16 look antiquated.

Also let me state the obvious.

Without the existence of stable robust data links no UAV mission can be performed.

Explain to me how these Chinese high-end drones can even function without line-of-sight data link (probably in C-band) and Ku-band SATCOM?

Hc44rFj.jpg


Keep in mind drone takeoff and landing is done in real-time with man-in-the-loop. There's no way you would want to automate an armed drone packed with explosives without human intervention at your own air base.

A drone is constantly sending data like wind speed, location, and direction.

A drone is able to stream near-real-time, high-resolution video from the other side of the planet.
 
.
STUPID !
It's not easy to destroy satellites in orbit.
China have Gaofen 4 satellites and many others in GEO orbit.
GEO Orbit is very very far away from Earth, it's not LEO orbit.
https://www.popsci.com/gaofen-4-wor...ntinues-chinas-great-leap-forward-into-space/

My advice, Learn your enemy ability before fight with them.

Lucky you are only Low-IQ keyboard warrior.
If you become US admiral, they will lost all aircraft carriers in matter of hours :enjoy:

FYI
Brian Weeden, a former U.S. Air Force space analyst, published a 47-page analysis on the website of The Space Review, which he said showed that China appears to be testing a kinetic interceptor launched by a new rocket that could reach geostationary orbit about 36,000 km (22,500 miles) above the earth
.

"If true, this would represent a significant development in China's anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities," wrote Weeden, now a technical adviser for Secure World Foundation, a Colorado-based nonprofit focused on secure and peaceful uses of outer space.

"No other country has tested a direct ascent ASAT weapon system that has the potential to reach deep space satellites in medium earth orbit, highly elliptical orbit or geostationary orbit," he wrote, referring to orbital paths that are above 2,000 km (1,250 miles) over the earth

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBREA2G1Q320140317

Could Geostationary electronic object be easily killed by laser?. They appear fixed location
 
.
bro i am a neutral guy if they think their PESA equipped AB and AB flight 1/2/3 is enough to deal with china, they have cooperative engagement capability that china currently lacks which eliminate the weakness of AB flight 1/2/3 destroyers, you have to admit bro you're relatively new on ship and its system design, they have decades of experience, admitting is not a bad thing sir

They have cooperative engagement capability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Engagement_Capability Which remedies most of the weaknes of PESA on AB which currently China lacks

Massive JTIDS Class 1 terminals weighed six hundred pounds and filled an entire equipment rack in the KC-135/Boeing 707 aircraft used for AWACS. These were available by the 70s and 80s.

But we have some people on this forum that believe China can't install a Link 16 equivalent data link terminal on a 13,000 ton 055 destroyer in the year 2020.

MyzL8VU.png
 
.
Not sure about technology, but in term of money put into it and in term of numbers, China is still far behind US. And one need to be a blinded, ignorant fool to think otherwise.

Number

While China indeed building ahead of US, but it was not by much, China commissioned 9 Capital Ship during 2019.

1x Type 002 Air Craft Carrier
1x Type 075
1x Type 071
5x Type 052D Destroyer
1x Type 055 Destroyer

US however, have commissioned 6 ships

1 x Ford Class Carrier
1 x America Class LHA
1 x Zumwalt Class Destroyer
3 x Arleigh Burke class Destroyer

However, the number favour US because even though they launched 6 ships in 2019, they already outnumber current Chinese ship. At the current commission rate. China would have to wait until

32+ years to be in parity with US Carrier number (China launch 1 carrier every 3 years)
20+ years to be in parity with US Amphibious Assault Ship
16 years to be in parity with US Cruiser
18 years to be in parity with US Destroyer.


On the other hand, US is also ahead of newly commissioned by tonnage. (1 Ford Class Carrier alone already equal to the tonnage of all the destroyer commissioned by the Chinese)

Money

US defence budget is 690 billions, account of GAO office, 46% of its budget goes to US Navy. Which mean US Navy budget is roughly 300 billions. On the other hand, Chinese Defence Budget is roughly 200 billions. Yes, in Purchase Power term, Chinese budget would have around 320 billions (to USD) but that is the whole budget, which mean in reality, Chinese Navy budget is highly likely smaller than the US Navy even after factor in purchase power.

Bases

Bases is important as they are to service the ship, ship require regular service so the number of base dictate how many ship a navy can put into the sea. Also indirectly affect the number of ship a country can have.

China have 16 major Naval Base (with 15 minor base) along its coastline. They are

Qingdao, Huludao, Jianggezhuang, Guzhen Bay, Lushun, Xiaopingdao, Ningbo (HQ), Zhoushan, Shanghai, Daxie, Fujian, Zhanjiang (HQ), Yulin, Huangfu, Hong Kong, Guangzhou.

Which service 3 fleet, Eastern Fleet, Southern Fleet and Northern Fleet

US, on the other hand, have 48 major Naval base inside and outside of CONUS (and 21 minor structure). Plus, US can have access to all NATO partner base, which further expand the basing structure to almost 70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_installations

US have 6 active Fleet, 1 reserve Fleet

With this matrix, apart from some serious technological gap between China and US, we can deduce that US Navy is still ahead (Quite ahead actually) in term of number, money and bases. I will say China is catching up go the US Pacific Fleet power soon (Which encompass 3 US naval fleet, 3rd, 5th and 7th) but I doubt China can overtake US navy power as a whole.

Technology wise, I think the debate is a moot point, because to have any meaningful debate, one need to know both Navy inside and out, I don't think such person exist, so it come down to each side speak on behalf of their own side, which basically turn into a you said, I said kind of argument, which again, is a moot point.
 
Last edited:
. . .
Not only USN is far larger and more sophisticated, the PLAN must also face US allies with considerable navy such as japan, Australia and maybe other NATO countries
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom