China’s Navy Will Overtake US Fleet by 2015

[Ryan Ruck]

China’s Navy Will Overtake US Fleet by 2015

Today the U.S. fleet numbers 282 ships. Though our naval fleet is the most technologically advanced power on the seas, the decreasing number of ships is placing the Navy in a vise… one that tightens as the number of ships steadily falls and deployments increase. While some may argue that the “new” enemies of today are not ones that can be challenged by the naval fleets of the “past”, a very ominous potential threat is building on the horizon.

China has been officially modernizing its military for two-and-a-half decades. By the year 2010, China’s submarine force will be nearly double the size of the U.S. submarine fleet. The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the U.S. fleet by 2015. In short, the Chinese military is specifically being configured to rival America’s Sea Power.

How will the U.S. respond? Go boldly into the future, secure in the knowledge that this country is prepared to meet the challenges ahead? Or allow the current trend to continue, hoping that we can “make do” with a diminishing number of resources against a soon to be superior naval power?



(Click image for larger version)

[Brian Baldwin]

Numbers aren't that big an issue. We need to be looking at capabilities and the motivation and training of those on the ships. You can field 10 times the number of equipment as your enemy and still lose.

[Ryan Ruck]

No doubt that training and technology are highly important aspects.

However, quantity is it's own quality...

It worked for the British at Al Alamein, it worked for the Soviets at Kursk, and countless other engagements.

[wallis]

Numbers are indeed one factor. Military doctrine and preparedness are also based on "force multiplier." Inasmuch as surface ships and submarines are in decline, as it were, one must also factor in the air forces that support our maritime fleets. True, if one has an air force capable of killing fifty submarines, for example, and there are a hundred approaching, the fifty remaining can execute a considerable amount of damage.

I believe one more factor has to be considered, and that is the training and the will of people in a combat situation. Against Japan, the U.S. was sorely outnumbered and outgunned. The will of the American serviceman impressed the Japanese military, as they thought we would run away after suffering great losses. And while the Chinese (PRC) are making gains in their training, I still hold on to the belief that the American serviceman is the best trained in the world.

One more opinion: we Americans love to bicker among ourselves and grumble a lot in the military. But when someone threats our "mothers," then it is all for one and one for all. "Torpedoes be damned; full speed ahead!"

[Brian Baldwin]

Which is exactly my point. Without the motivation and proper training we saw just how well the Iraqi tanks did against American ones. The same is true the world over. When the germans put 13 year old boys in fighter planes during WWI they were fodder.

You can not replace training and will with numbers. The chinese tried to overrun our positions many times in Korea. Didn't work the way they would have liked in the end.

[Aplomb]

This might just be a female type of thing to think but I'll venture to speak anyway. Are what ships and weapons the Chinese use made in China? I mean, so many things that I have purchased that are made there break pretty quickly. Maybe they want to have an abundance for war because they want to back up their own cheaply made, poor quality products.

[Sean Osborne]

China's military prowess (excepting only their still limited ICBM nuclear capability) lies first and foremost as an overwhelming Eurasian land power.

That's where sheer numbers on a battlefield really comes to bear.

Even then victory in modern land warfare is determined by who controls the entire battlespace - from the boots on the ground to the sensors and weapons in near-earth orbit.

Chinese PLAN ships might be numerous by 2015 - but they will still be primarily a littoral Navy and incapable of true blue water global power projection of the kind 12 U.S. nuclear armed-Carrier Battle Groups can project. They would still have problem with the total battlespace control in deep water as well.

[MinutemanCO]

Does the advent of CVN-21 (CVN 77 due for service in 2008 and CVN 65 in 2013) give us an indication of the progress being made by our Navy or does it by its updated technology and capabilities reveal our weaknesses that we must consequently struggle to overcome? A bit of a circuitous question meant to establish whether or not R&D on new naval ship development is on the right track relative to contemporary/future naval warfare. Also, does carrier group support ship technology move forward concurrent with carrier development?

[Ryan Ruck]

Aplomb,
An increasing number of the military hardware that the Chinese use is being made indigenously.

Currently, I'd say they produce most of their gear on their own with, say, 35%-45% of the rest coming from other countries such as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Israel, and a few others.

The perception you have for cheaply made products being analogous to cheaply made military hardware would have been accurate say 20-25 years ago. Since then, however, the Chinese have focused very heavily on high-tech industrial and military espionage and have made quantum leaps in military technology. They have just not generally chosen to carry this over to their product export sector (computer gear being an exception). Whether this is because they do not want to waste the money on improving their exports and would rather spend this money on the military or, because they don't want to give us a sense of what manufacturing standards they are really capable of I'm not sure.

---

Sean,
I would say that it seems the Chinese are following the Russian Navy model in that they are putting a heavy focus on large numbers of submarines and guided missile destroyers all well armed with highly capable anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

Any aircraft carriers the Chinese field I feel will be the exact opposite of their American counterparts. With America the carriers are our first line naval asset. I believe that with the Chinese (and Russians since they are talking about building a couple Nimitz-type carriers) they will be rear line vessels that will only be brought in to "mop up" remaining forces in a naval conflict. Of course, that is just my perception…

---

Minuteman,
I would hope that the US Navy continues steadfastly on development of the CVNX program. Especially after the cancellation of the DDX program.

I could very easily see Congress canceling the CVNX and mandating that they simply continue construction of the current CVN type. After all, since we won the Cold War, you don't need large numbers of super-expensive, high-tech, and highly capable aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

[Sean Osborne]

Ryan and MinutemanCO,

The US is pressing forward with very striking stealth-like, radar reflecting hull design for both line combatant and littoral warfare vessels.

China is not.

The difference in sum capabilities and qualitative enhancements between a US cruiser, destoryer or frigate and their PLAN counterpart is just as striking.

The vessels in the water now and new launches in the next year or so will be the ones to fight the war.

When the PLAN sails its Great Red Fleet around the world to announce its arrival on the world stage - then I might take note. When they engage in modern naval warfare - full ECM/ECCM do-or-die combat - then they can be judged as an effective fighting force, or not. To date they have zero "hands on" experience within their ranks or officer corps. Until then China is truly only a potentially monster-sized terrestrial power to be reckoned with - and this land component has not seen actual combat since a brief border skirmish with Vietnam - so they have no combined arms landwarfare experience either.

They have doctrine (modern PLA and Sun Tsu) and lots and lots of sheer numbers. I think when we see a move on Taiwan then we'll see what's what.

[Brian Baldwin]

That's an extremely good point Sean. But even though they don't have the hands on training I'm sure they'll get it quick enough via the Russians. With China's money and Russia's experience they could become a force quicker than we expect. But I'm with you in that we're still top dog and not likely to give that up easily.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ryan and MinutemanCO,

The US is pressing forward with very striking stealth-like, radar reflecting hull design for both line combatant and littoral warfare vessels.

China is not.

Actually, China is making inroads in building stealth naval vessels...

[Sean Osborne]

Actually, China is making inroads in building stealth naval vessels...

Ryan,

That's not exactly a stealth vessel, it's a carbon copy catamaran of the Australian naval technology built by INCAT of Hobart, Australia and its hull construction is 100% aluminum. They're extremely fast but not stealthy at all, and despite the twin hulls are not very stablized when underway in rough seas... not a good situation for a shooting warship.

The ChiCom vessel is a much smaller version of the ocean-going catamaran leased from Australia by the US Army. I was just on this ship about two months ago now, the TSV-1X Spearhead.

[Sean Osborne]

As you can see in the images above the broadsides of those exotic-looking vessels make a virtual 90 degree right angle with the surface of the water. No stealth in that at all.

True naval stealth technology mimics that of the military airborne variety. The Swedes are world leaders and have afloat the world first true stealth naval combatant warship, the YS200-class Visby corvette.






http://www.memagazine.org/backissues...h/stealth.html

http://www.kockums.se/AboutKockums/n...ealthmain.html

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...soldiertech.nl