What's new

Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles.

.
The Soviets had a 600 ship navy, and massive quantitative advantage in troops and armor in Eastern Europe. Which was nullified by US precision fires and digital battle networks.

Massive expansion of US long range ground fires enabled by AI targeting, hypersonic glide and cruise missiles, introduction of B-21 bombers and NGAD, will make it extremely difficult to achieve overmatch against US forces.

It’s all about quality. And China will never be able to build ships faster than US missile production.

Small sample of US missile inventories:

4,000 Tomahawks
4,000 JASSM stealth missiles with another 3,000-6,000 on order
1,000-2,000 SM-6 Missiles with antiship capability

US ground fires expansion this decade


2,400 Precision Strike Missiles
Hundreds of Tomahawk/SM-6 missiles for Typhon launchers
Several hundred LRHW Dark Eagle Missiles
And they just tested a hypersonic weapon?

P.S: You cant compare Soviet Russia with China.
 
.
The Soviets had a 600 ship navy, and massive quantitative advantage in troops and armor in Eastern Europe. Which was nullified by US precision fires and digital battle networks.
NATO had more ships that USSR had missiles. USSR's navy never had blue water dominance in mind. All ships bigger than a boat they have have huge huge ASMs on them — to take down capital ships, and shipping.

USSR also had enormous submarine fleet, but again, you don't use submarines for amphibious landing, or coastal bombardment.
 
.
China now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.

But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”

A warship is only as powerful as its weaponry. A popular criticism of the Royal Navy, for instance, focuses on the relatively anemic missile load-out of the British fleet’s otherwise big, high-tech vessels.


Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.

But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.

The disparity makes sense. At 4.5 million tons, the U.S. fleet displaces more than twice as much as the Chinese fleet does. Assuming reasonable weapons-loads, tonnage is a rough analogue of combat capability.


In this count, any over-the-horizon land-attack or anti-ship missile counts as an “offensive missile.” The tallies count missile tubes or launchers, not the munitions themselves. It’s always possible that a ship could sail into combat with fewer missiles than its launchers can hold, owing perhaps to a shortage of weapons.


In any event, the U.S. fleet in theory can sail into battle with 10,196 ship- or submarine-launched offensive missiles such as Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land-attack missiles.

That count is uncertain, as it’s unclear how many anti-ship missiles the U.S. Navy’s 52 attack and cruise-missile submarines routinely carry. The actual total number of USN offensive missiles might be closer to 10,500 or even higher.

It’s equally unclear how many missiles the PLAN’s 55 attack submarines carry. Giving the Chinese sub flotilla the same number of missiles as the U.S. undersea force yields a total PLAN offensive missile count of 4,168.


It’s worth noting that almost all of the USN launchers—9,804—are Mark 41 vertical-launch-system cells, which are compatible with a wide array of munitions. It’s highly unlikely an American fleet would sail with only offensive missiles in its VLS cells. A fleet must defend itself, after all. It would need anti-air missiles.

Then again, the Americans’ latest anti-air missile also functions as an anti-ship and land-attack weapon.

The balance of the American munitions are Harpoon or NSM anti-ship missiles that launch from fixed, angled launchers or torpedo tubes.

The PLAN’s launcher configuration is very different. Just 2,576 of the Chinese fleet’s missiles are in VLS cells. No fewer than 1,592 missiles launch from angled launchers or torpedo tubes.

An enemy crew facing an incoming missile barrage doesn’t care whether the munitions launched vertically or at an angle. But VLS cells inherently are more flexible, which is why the balance of vertical to angled launchers in the Chinese fleet by the year shifts more toward the former.


The Chinese fleet is expanding as more destroyers and frigates join the fleet. The PLAN’s missile holdings surely will grow in coming years. No one expects the USN’s own missile count to increase, however.

As older cruisers and guided-missile submarines decommission over the next decade before new destroyers and subs can replace them, the U.S. fleet could lose a thousand tubes. Assuming, that is, robotic vessels don’t fill the gap.

It wouldn’t be surprising if, by 2030, the PLAN sailed with 5,000 or 6,000 sea-launched offensive missiles, while the USN sailed with fewer than 9,500. It will be much harder for the Chinese fleet to catch up to the U.S. fleet’s air-launched firepower, however.

The PLAN is just now beginning to form its first modern air wing for its first modern carrier, which is nearing completion at a shipyard in Shanghai. The USN meanwhile is adding new and longer-range missiles to its own nine air wings.


All this math belies one huge Chinese advantage, of course. The entire PLAN can concentrate in the western Pacific Ocean. The USN’s ships on the other hand split roughly 60-40 between the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets. It’s not impossible in a crisis to shift a vessel from east to west, but the move might not happen fast enough to matter in a potentially quick, destructive clash.

But then there’s an American advantage that might matter even more. China has no dependable allies. The United States has many. This summer, the U.S., British and Japanese fleets formed a massive fleet in the waters south of Japan—one with three aircraft carriers, a helicopter carrier and many hundreds of offensive missiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...n-the-us-navy-but-its-got-far-fewer-missiles/


Even if the Navy were to lose missile tubes by the end of the decade, that will be offset by the massive expansion of US ground based long range fires. We already know the Army is purchasing 1,000 Precision Strike Missiles over the next 5 years. And likely hundreds of Tomahawks and SM-6s. I expect the Army inventory to be 1000-2000 long range missiles by 2030.
And, why do you think like that? What is the Chinese missile production rats?

Do you remember that for over a decade, the US did this propaganda saying that North Korea couldn't miniaturise nuclear weapons and only had material to produce 2-3 nukes?

Then came President Donald Trump who spilled the beans saying, actually the North Koreans have a "substantial" nuclear weapons arsenal (hundreds) that could hit the US.

Then this happened.


I expect US missile inventories to be in excess of 15,000 by 2030. We’re seeing a huge expansion in JASSM stealth cruise missiles and ground based missiles this decade.
 
Last edited:
. . . .
China’s numerical advantage in ships is largely in frigates and corvettes. US long range AirPower would annihilate those ships.
Not to mention the fast attack boats; SSNs (US and allied) in the first and second island chain.
 
Last edited:
. .
Not to mention the fast attack boats; SSNs (US and allied) in the first and second island chain.

in the first island chain, china has more than enough assets to take on the us.
its mostly due to the fact that the us is spread around the world where as china has nearly its entire navy right there.
plus the fact that in the first island chain, chinese land based power comes into play, everything from shore based anti-ship missiles(including ASBMs)to land based jets to long ranged land based air defence. wheres as us assets would not be immediately available or have low on-station time due to the distance from their bases, jets like the f-22 would be heavily handicapped by the shear distance and vulnerability of air tankers.

this is pretty much acknowledged by the us military, that the first island chain is pretty much suicidal for anything except subs.

the chinese navy does on-average have smaller ships than the USN, far fewer missiles per ship, and of course far fewer carriers. however as usual its the trend that matters.
the chinese naval modernization and expansion is at a very high pace, with its carrier program becoming mature alongside LPD, LHD and large destroyers, it won't be long before its tonnage and missile cells also catches up.
 
.
Yeah, but how many missiles could each manufacture in short notice when things escalate? Also, China keeps these things very secret, most of the military stuff we know about China is by estimation.
 
. .
Factually incorrect article.

VLS on frigates: 32 x 31 on 054As = 992 tubes

VLS on destroyers: 64 x 25 on 052D + 112 x 8 on 055 + 48 x 6 on 052C = 2784 tubes

they got VLS counts wrong which is a core part of their thesis. Thus everything else is likely false as well.


Not to mention that their Mk41 VLS is pretty small compared to Chinese Universal VLS.

Yes, Chinese Universal VLS (9m) is much Bigger than US VLS, even their newest one like Mk57 VLS (7m).


So Chinese VLS can hold Longer Range & Bigger punch Missiles onboard their Warships

images (26).jpeg



And this american troller barking, how easily they can sweep Chinese Corvettes & Frigates. Plain stupid.

He didn't realize that Chinese Corvettes & Frigates works in tandem with their Powerful Destroyer Fleet
 
. . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom