US Pacific Fleet shrinks while China's Navy grows | Fox News

[Dalit]

if the world would pay the U.S 1% of it GDP to be sheriff sure

if not I want us to pull back our military spending, shut down all out overseas base and clean house at home

That is more like it.

it's 5 inch cannon is good enough!! with it's advance fire control targeting could take out even the mighty yamato if it hits a weak spot.

but honestly this is good. U.S should cut's military spending by 50%



the cat is out of the bag this is now ALL our problems. can China please fix this?

Bro, you have to admit the disastrous ramifications of unilateral American intervention in Iraq.

 

[Viet]

actually he is ignorant fools, Imperial Japanese Navy had more than 500 warships in their inventory at the peaks of war (including torpedo boats and submarine chaser)

actually Standard Missile can be used against surface target, for Submarine there is ASROC and ASW helicopter

But currently they are developing LRASM to be fitted in their VLS.

Is it necessary to resort to personal attack?
A typical Japanese strike group or escort fleet had some 20 or 30 warships. That's what I mean, not the entire Japanese navy.

 

[Nike]

Is it necessary to resort to personal attack?
A typical Japanese strike group or escort fleet had some 20 or 30 warships. That's what I mean, not the entire Japanese navy.

I am still remember everything what you said about me and my country in the past, i will never forgive you fool

Typical IJN fleet had their logistic ships and their own escort ships (small frigate and submarine chaser) accompanied them and that's not about tens or dozen in number.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

People are not taking into account tonnage.

The US is retiring small ships (i.e. Frigates) and building bigger ships now.
I think the US Navy has crossed the 3.5M ton range.

Other countries have not even crossed the 1M ton range yet.

Look at the size of our small littoral combat ship. I think only minesweepers are smaller.

Imagine all of the stuff that could be positioned on the deck...and this is what we call a "small" ship.

 

[jhungary]

People are not taking into account tonnage.

The US is retiring small ships (i.e. Frigates) and building bigger ships now.
I think the US Navy has crossed the 3.5M ton range.

Other countries have not even crossed the 1M ton range yet.

View attachment 285266
Look at the size of our small littoral combat ship. I think only minesweepers are smaller.

Imagine all of the stuff that could be positioned on the deck...and this is what we call a "small" ship.

Actually, the smallest US Navy Combat Ship is the Cyclone Class Patrol Boat. Operated by the US Naval Special Warfare Group. Those ship are only weighted 350 tonnes and have a crew of 28 (4 Officer and 24 Enlisted) There are currently 14 Cyclone Class in service with the US Navy.

And the title is actually misleading. In fact, US have expanded their service ship to over 500, where the number 276 is actually the number of ship in commission (Having the USS title) US Navy operate both civilian ship (MV or MS) as well as Naval Auxiliary Support Ship (USNS) and also they did not count the Ready Reserve Fleet (Mothballed) US Navy ship which contain quite a few Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Cruiser and also Battleship. And finally Merchant Marine, which itself operate about 500 ship over 1000 tons

In General, there are about 1500-2000 ship that were in some way associated with the US Naval Operation, but only 278 were owned and commissioned by the US Navy.

 

[cnleio]

Tomahawk missile can destroy everything from surface warship to land target from 2,500 km distance. An aegis destroyer can carry 90 plus tomahawk, isn't it?

I only agree the Tomahawk cruse missiles can hit long-distance ground target ... but as far as i knew there's only the sea test for Tomahawk Block IV to hit a container ship, currently not actual combat deployment yet and ur U.S DDG still equiping Harpoon as standard anti-ship missiles (non-VLS launched).

The Tomahawk Block IV isn't some powerful weapon, coz:
1. U.S, Russia, China all have their long-distance cruise missiles, 'Tomahawk', 'Calibre-MK', 'DF-10'
2. the anti-ship cruise missile, it's subsonic flight during the whole process ... not current popular supersonic missile attack at the end of flight before hitting ship. It means it's not a problem for CIWS on advanced warships to hit down such slow-attack missile.
3. the anti-ship cruise missile tech not mature yet, still under test it's not the main anti-ship weapon, although long-distance attack (over 1,000km) but flight speed too slow to break through Fire Net of a advanced warship fleet.

Here i recommend PLAN type052D's YJ-18 anti-ship missile, VLS-launched, supersonic-attack at the end of flight

 

[nang2]

I only agree the Tomahawk cruse missiles can hit long-distance ground target ... but as far as i knew there's only the sea test for Tomahawk Block IV to hit a container ship, currently not actual combat deployment yet and ur U.S DDG still equiping Harpoon as standard anti-ship missiles.

The Tomahawk Block IV isn't some powerful weapon, coz:
1. U.S, Russia, China all have their long-distance cruise missiles, 'Tomahawk', 'Calibre-MK', 'DF-10'
2. the anti-ship cruise missile, it's subsonic flight in the whole process ... not current popular supersonic attack at the end of flight before hitting ship. It means it's not a problem for CIWS on warships to deal with such slow-attack.
3. the anti-ship cruise missile tech not mature yet, still under test it's not the main anti-ship weapon, although long-distance attack but flight speed too slow.

View attachment 285329 View attachment 285330 View attachment 285331 View attachment 285332 View attachment 285333

Amazing. Look at those birds that sensed the danger before the impact.

 

[Jlaw]

Amazing. Look at those birds that sensed the danger before the impact.

Not sure if the bird made it to safety @cnleio

 

[cnleio]

Not sure if the bird made it to safety @cnleio

The another problem ... if we watch the test video of Tomahawk Block IV hit surface target on the sea, there's a F-18E/F fighter fly with it and guide the Tomahawk missile fly to the target ship ... 1,000km flight attack beyond ‘Aegis’ radar range and Tomahawk Block IV without active radar guidance, at the end of flight it need some aircraft guide to the target. Here's the test video of Tomahawk Block IV anti-ship cruise missile:
【AIsonny】美国海军成功测试“改变游戏规则”的新型导弹—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看

 

[Slave_to_the_waffle]

View attachment 285266

Imagine all of the stuff that could be positioned on the deck...and this is what we call a "small" ship.

There is a lot of space there, a lot of space for oh, I don't know, maybe something like this?

Maybe one day it'll be test fired from an LCS? Oh wait, that's already happened:

Yup, that'll ruin your week:

According to the US Navy, the LCS is to get either Harpoon or NSM this year.

LCS grows fangs by adding anti-ship missiles in 2016

Smaller in ship total, but not tonnage, but no less deadly.

The another problem ... if we watch the test video of Tomahawk Block IV hit surface target on the sea, there's a F-18E/F fighter fly with it and guide the Tomahawk missile fly to the target ship ... 1,000km flight attack beyond ‘Aegis’ radar range and Tomahawk Block IV without active radar guidance, at the end of flight it need some aircraft guide to the target. Here's the test video of Tomahawk Block IV anti-ship cruise missile:
【AIsonny】美国海军成功测试“改变游戏规则”的新型导弹—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看

It was a test to see if it can be guided by an F/A-18:

This is a feature with the USN's Cooperative Engagement Capability. It's not a necessity for hitting long-range targets.

AEGIS can't see that far, but the US has other assets, orbital and suborbital, that can be used. The missile's autonomous targeting capabilities, also seen on the LRASM, don't require an aircraft for guidance.

Or if you think an aircraft is needed for long-ranged targeting and guidance, at ranges approaching 1000 km, how would China guide its missiles with the same range? Anyway you can do it, the US can too. The absence of active radar homing doesn't mean it can't find its own way around or guide/target itself. The US has plenty of options to leverage.

...

Or put another way... Or Skjold class doesn't have a radar that can see a surface vessel at 200km:

It's still able, and has demonstrated the capability to hit targets at that distance:

NSM doesn't have active homing either. There are other options.

 

[Super Falcon]

China is next Superpower time is running out for USA

 

[rott]

China is next Superpower time is running out for USA

Never trust fox news.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

it's 5 inch cannon is good enough!! with it's advance fire control targeting could take out even the mighty yamato if it hits a weak spot.

but honestly this is good. U.S should cut's military spending by 50%



the cat is out of the bag this is now ALL our problems. can China please fix this?

One Arleigh Burke DDG can easily take on Yamato, but the modern warfare concept is the saturation attack, so the Imperial Japanese navy won't last for few minutes in a modern naval warfare.

BTW, railgun > 155 mm > 130 mm > 127 mm.

 

[cnleio]

There is a lot of space there, a lot of space for oh, I don't know, maybe something like this?

Maybe one day it'll be test fired from an LCS? Oh wait, that's already happened:

Yup, that'll ruin your week:

According to the US Navy, the LCS is to get either Harpoon or NSM this year.

LCS grows fangs by adding anti-ship missiles in 2016

Smaller in ship total, but not tonnage, but no less deadly.



It was a test to see if it can be guided by an F/A-18:

This is a feature with the USN's Cooperative Engagement Capability. It's not a necessity for hitting long-range targets.

AEGIS can't see that far, but the US has other assets, orbital and suborbital, that can be used. The missile's autonomous targeting capabilities, also seen on the LRASM, don't require an aircraft for guidance.

Or if you think an aircraft is needed for long-ranged targeting and guidance, at ranges approaching 1000 km, how would China guide its missiles with the same range? Anyway you can do it, the US can too. The absence of active radar homing doesn't mean it can't find its own way around or guide/target itself. The US has plenty of options to leverage.

...

Or put another way... Or Skjold class doesn't have a radar that can see a surface vessel at 200km:

It's still able, and has demonstrated the capability to hit targets at that distance:

NSM doesn't have active homing either. There are other options.

The normal situation, i do believe U.S, Russia, China etc will choose AWACS to guide long-distance missile attack, my friend ! The GPS, Glonass, BeiDou satellites chain to target the surface ship locaion, and AWACS flying near area to guide the missile attack from over 1,000km distance.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

The total added launching weight of US navy in 2015 is below 20% of total added launching weight of China navy in 2015, within ten years this trends of relative change will be unlikely to change even taking the launch of new aircraft carriers into account, because China will launch about 4-7 new aircraft carriers within next ten years.