As with any post involving the PLAN 🍿

🤓My Navy is better than your Navy🤓 😡NOOOOOOOOOO !!!😡

Me as a german: we have a rather small navy but every vessel is an aesthetic banger 😎

Huh 100+ comments what's goi... Oh, nevermind, nothing to see here.

Pretty wild it's literally one big shitfest under the second comment chain.

I think he may be a bot or just a very bored (or loyal) individual. Not sure which is weirder. I'm keeping a comment chain with him going to keep him busy out of sheer curiosity for how these things work. It's like he's not allowed to not-reply. Or maybe they're engagement focused and I'm giving him commission. Really curious about it.

You’re doing a great job. Call them “brown water carriers” next.

Wow he stopped replying. I was going to try and bring that up, too.

He manages to piss off people on all/both sides, it’s really quite an amazing feat.

The mental gymnastics of the particular user can be fun, and several rebuttals can be useful for people learning about the topic. It does require wading through some garbage though. But based on past discussions this thread will be locked soon.

Thought with like 150 comments we'd have some actual discussion Shame.

If a post involves the Russian or Chinese navy and has any comments, I brace myself. If it has lots of comments, I just generally assume the worst before entering. I have a Royal Navy bias, I won't deny it. But I'll never let that bias drive my admiration of the many awesome warships we've gotten from every side of the globe over the centuries.

Based warship enjoyer

Is that Firefly from honkai Star Rail?

not for me though, that person is just............I don't know what to say. Not to mention the source they provided is weird. Does anyone know anything about it?

The source is literally themselves (their own work and aggregations), they have a webpage of sorts that they’re pushing, probably a YT account as well before too long.

Oh okay. Seriously, that entire thing is just bad. I mean, apparently the US has a Pennsylvania class battleship in reserve. Not to mention their classification of ships. They are basing it on weight, so a Fletcher is a frigate and an Arleigh Burke is a cruiser. Also, USS Salem is apparently a battlecruiser. Edit: Also, they count cutters as corvettes. Which is just stupid.

It really is terrible. They’ve counted every museum ship as ‘in mothballs’ so apparently the USN is going to reactivate ships like Texas, Intrepid or the Arizona. If they can’t even distinguish between ships that are actually in reserve and which are museums/ war graves, how can they expect to be taken as a serious source for anything else?

I originally had an idea along those lines, writing a book where a secret conspiracy, led by myself and my friends, would reactivate every museum aircraft and warship around the globe to create a major military to fight an alien invasion. Spent years gathering lists of planes and aircraft and even wrote a few sample chapters. I gave it up around the age of 12 because it wasn’t plausible. Even I left *Arizona* off the list.

Idk what I’m looking at, how do y'all even know it’s a 076? I can only see a metal shell of one big ass ship haha

I’m assuming you can tell it’s a large amphib being built at a Chinese shipyard? And that the only PLAN amphib is the Type 075? If so, a person can then tell that this is longer and much wider than an 075. With larger hanger space, different elevator layout, a catapult, and 2 islands. Any one of those will point to this not being an 075. That, coupled with the fact that the PLA put out a tender around 4 years ago, for a large LHD/LHA (tentatively dubbed Type 076), with a well deck, EMCAT (EMALS), arresting gear, 40t deck edge elevator, and ability to operate in a wide range of temperatures and humidity. Lastly, the USN’s ONI put out a [PLA Navy Identification Guide](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24628046/2024_oni_plan_poster.pdf) 2 months ago, featuring a notional silhouette of a “Type 076 - NATO reporting name: Yulan Class LHA”. … this is how we know it’s the first Type 076.

God damn this is some seriously impressive detective work, kudos

Nah, this is some of the most transparent stuff. We have regular updates from aerial/satellite imagery on a publically visible site for a confirmed project. That's as easy as it gets when it comes to the PLA; they're practically advertising. People are just used to a military saying something, and they basically never say anything.

Has there been any reports why they're installing a EMAL on the ship? Unless they have some new STOVL fighter in the works

STOVL (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) does need or use catapults nor arresting gear (this is CATOBAR). It’s for heavy UCAVs, ISR drones and perhaps a handful of J-35s. This was covered in the tender released 4 or so years ago (excluding specific mention of exactly what drones or aircraft the EMCATs would be launching).

Catapult would save on fuel, but I hadn't consider them trying use LHA as a Drone Carrier, but that does make sense.

Bit of guesswork, probably? We know what shipyards in China will be building/are building ships for the PLAN, and we get images of the drydocks. Looking at this metal shell right now, you can tell that it's a pretty large ship, it's got the big holes that probably lead into the hangar space, that big empty strip is likely for the EMALS, the little bits poking out front the deck are likely for CIWS stuff, and the island is probably blocked out on the side opposite to the empty strip where the EMALS will go

Do we suppose it has the EMALS for UAV deployments since it's an LHD? Or are we expecting it to utilise a small number of manned fixed wing aviation?

I've only ever heard talk about this being for UAVs

Thanks very much

Beyond the talk, it doesn't really make sense for them to make a ship this small with only one catapult to launched manned fixed wing aircraft - you'd make huge sacrifices in terms of airwing size and capabilities and munitions depth/fuel stores and whatnot. If they want a carrier, they can just build a carrier without unnecessarily sacrificing all off this.

Yeah I assumed so but was wondering if they had managed to squeeze it in as an option, a bit like the America class, as the scale and length of the EMALS is hard to work out. Definitely interesting though.

I mean it works with all the small-ish F-35B carriers deployed by Italy, Japan etc.

It doesn’t make sense to operate such a ship as a CVL, but that doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t gain anything from stationing a detachment of manned fighters onboard. Not every threat requires a full fleet carrier air wing to address, and unless you plan on never deploying a carrier group separate of an amphibious one, there’s going to be a delay getting air support to the area if the LHD doesn’t have some of its own. American ARGs always have a strike fighter detachment embarked on the group flagship for these reasons. There’s no reason to believe the concept isn’t viable or valuable either, considering that allowed the USN to temporarily substitute *Bataan* for a CVN in the Red Sea, and China’s never been against letting someone else’s good practice become their doctrine. EDIT: Drones can theoretically handle much of the mission that USMC VMFA detachments do, yes, but they are not a panacea - they have their own tradeoffs against manned fighters. They take up more space and bandwidth on the ship by virtue of requiring control spaces and communications, can be to disruption by even fairly low-tech measures, lack of multirole capability meaning you need to embark more to do the job of one fighter, and the fact your drones start costing almost as much as a manned fighter if you “fix” these issues. On land where you can easily make an air base bigger, half of those aren’t a problem, but you don’t have that luxury at sea.

theres a lot of people here who struggle comprehending the difference between amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers/light carriers

It maybe possible to launch a J-15 or J-35 from it, but no way manned fixed wings could land there. UAV may be a better options.

The catapult is the length and type as Fujian’s, so it is definitely possible to launch J-15Bs and J-35s. It also has advanced arrestor gear, and the length of the full deck is longer than the length of the angled landing strip on their other carriers - so yes, you could also land a manned fix wing there.

I’ve seen claims the EMALS on Type 076 is the same length as those on *Fujian*, but unless this ship is considerably larger than claimed, I’m not seeing it. Type 076’s has been claimed at anywhere from 252.3m to 263m long, but the EMALS insert, including the overhang, is ~38% of the ship’s overall length if you measure both in a [top-down image](https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/05/28/type-076-size-comparison.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=380&dpr=3). Yes, the linked photo has side-by-side comparisons with Type 075 and *Fujian*, but I didn’t use those here, I’m simply measuring within the middle image of Type 076. Scaling that measurement to the ship’s claimed size, that would mean a catapult length of 95-100m, whereas *Fujian*’s catapults are ~110-115m by my last recollection. EDIT: If the rumored 78MW total power output is accurate, then some manned jet operations should be theoretically possible. The similarly-sized and -shaped *America* needs 70kSHP (52MW) to reach 22 knots, and requires ~16.6MW of onboard power without any EMALS (she is CODLOG, so her 2x3.7MW electric motors are not running during sprints), so Type 076 should be capable of hitting similar speeds. A WS-19-powered J-35 and F-35B should have similar thrust:weight at MTOW; even if the former lacks a lift fan and has a runway only half the length, getting off the deck with full payload should be possible if the F-35B can do it. In practice, it will probably come down to intangibles - stores capacity, onboard maintenance facilities, compatibility with existing missions - that dictates whether Type 076 embarks J-35s. You can’t, for instance, generate wind over deck if you need to be stopped to launch/recover hovercraft.

How about landing?

I hope you’re not genuinely expecting me to entertain the idea that China forgot to put arresting gear on a ship they’ve always intended to launch non-VTOL UAVs from. Whether that arresting gear will be able to take a J-35 is another matter.

With it having a straight as opposed to angled deck, having an EMALS or any sort of catapult system raises questions how they intend to recover aircraft after they’ve been launched. Does the PLAAF or PLAN even have any aircraft like the F-35B or Harrier that could benefit from a catapult assisted take off but vertical or rolling landing? It does make it an interesting option for the US Navy which could possibly create a hybrid F-35D which has the F-35C’s landing gear and arrestor hook, but the F-35B’s hover engines and operate them off of their LHA and LHDs

>Does the PLAAF or PLAN even have any aircraft like the F-35B or Harrier that could benefit from a catapult assisted take off but vertical or rolling landing? They don't. At present, speculation is that the EMLAS on this ship will operate UCAVs that would be too heavy to launch conventionally, but we don't really know what at present. Full-sized fixed wing jet fighters seem less likely, but, the vessel is still far from complete and only time will tell what the final configuration will be. Otherwise, we've seen mockups of several helicopter types by the drydock in which the Type 076 is being assembled - of a Z-9, a Z-20, a Ka-28, a helicopter drone, and a Z-8.

>It does make it an interesting option for the US Navy which could possibly create a hybrid F-35D which has the F-35C’s landing gear and arrestor hook, but the F-35B’s hover engines and operate them off of their LHA and LHDs Why, what benefits would that have?

It would give the US Navy effectively more carrier decks with aircraft that could launch a higher MTOW that could still recover in a hover configuration. They have 12 full size CVNs and another 8 LHA/Ds that could operate the F-35. I feel like it gives them tactical options.

>higher MTOW that could still recover in a hover configuration. That's why Britain has developed the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) to allow the F-35B to recover at a heavier weight

I have no idea myself, but I wonder what the MTOW differences are between vertical lift off, SRVL and a catapult launch. I feel like it should make a huge difference (even if it's just for fuel). Though I guess it isn't big enough given that the US hasn't implemented anything of the sort.

UCAVs would be more likely at this point. Something smaller than a F-35 but still too heavy to take off unassisted.

> aircraft that could launch a higher MTOW that could still recover in a hover configuration. and have all that MTOW be eaten by the hover fan? The hover system on the F-35B adds a good 4000 lbs of weight

It also raises the question of what aircraft would be launched in the first place. Probably drones, but then this leads to the question of what types of drones- common piston powered MALE drones and smaller can probably take off without any catapult system, and in any case the ship presumably needs to be able to recover them as well. I assume we'll get better answers if/when we see mockups on the deck.

The supposed contract tender for Type 076 specified arresting gear as well. Given the only unfinished section of the flight deck is also right about where they would put arresting engines, it’s too early to say whether Type 076 will or will not have them.

I dont see the point of having both using lift engines AND wanting to land using an arrestor hook. If your aircraft already is capable of STOVL operations, then why bother with an arrested landing? It creates more wear and tear on the frame due to the hard impact of landings. The beefier landing gears and hook add more weight to the airframe which causes penalties. the F-35B also makes vertical and rolling landings a lot easier now with a press of the button, so its safer than an arrested landing. The benefit of an arrested landing is greater bring back ability, but the F-35B has already been doing a rolling landing that allows it to do the same. Like wise there is no benefit for a CATOBAR or STOBAR plane to have a lift engine either.

I wonder if there will be a paradigm shift in the way we see small carriers without angled decks. Such as using them the way it was in WW2, where aircraft would take off and land on a straight deck. This would obviously mean that you can't do them simultaneously, but for a small carrier, its an acceptable compromise.

From what I have heard neither US or China ever do take off and landing at the same time, at least in recent decade/s.

Some of the smaller carriers, like CdG, definitely cant as the two catapult positions are into the angled deck. So it makes me wonder, since simultaneous take offs and landings cant be done on small carriers anyways, if theres interest on the Chinese side on just using a straight deck for CATOBAR operations.

Simultaneous takeoffs and landings have not been standard carrier practice by any nation for decades, since the advent of cyclic flight ops. The reason large fleet carriers still have an offset landing strip is so a bolter doesn't either crash into parked aircraft or fall into the water directly in the ship's path.

This post need to be locked and reposted, and maybe ban winter-Gas3368 from derailing it with unnecessary claims.

Winter occasionally has his moments: the other day he pointed out a minelayer design I didn’t know about. But if you dare disagree, expect to engage a brick wall who can spend all day writing comments while not reading yours. When he’s wrong, as he often is, these rebuttals can get into attacks and “nuh uh”s, which dramatically lower the discussion standards I enjoy here.

Is that a stern elevator or is this a deck elevator that's just far back? I can't tell at what level that small red strip is.

Does anyone know what type of ship is the one on the bottom right of the drydock? looks like a frigate/destroyer.

Probably a Type 054A frigate: https://x.com/tshugart3/status/1751291998194073887

Probably an 054B. The hull in that image isn’t built up to the main deck, so would be narrower than it would appear. I’ve also had trouble measuring beam in past shots, and personally accept a 1-2 meter error margin as standard: the 054A is officially 16 meters and 054B 16.8 meters, close enough I would not be comfortable using the beam to tell them apart. I’d rather use length, 134 meters vs 150, though eying the L/B ratio I’m not comfortable making a call.

Holy shit! This definitely feels like a tea-worth photo. Hope the original photographer deems it worth it.

It's kinda funny. A short while back a Chinese tourist got arrested for taking photos of a military base in Scandinavia (I think Norway?) while on board a commercial flight. Meanwhile in China:

Happenings at an active military base have a very different level of sensitivity than a half-finished hull in a dry dock. If you think you’d get off any lighter in China, charter a flight over Yulin or Qingdao and see how long you last.

I mean, if it was taken from a comercial plane, there isn't much they can do given the location of the drydock. And at this point on the Type 076's construction, I doubt they care too much about it. It isn't a super critical project, either, unlike the Type 003.

I love the comment section

EMALS for launching heavy drones

Crazy, that will be the Type 003, Type 076 and Gerald R Fords with EMALS. I honestly wouldn't classify this as an LHD anymore as it looks like it's going to weigh around ~50,000 tonnes and be capable of launching fixed wing aircraft if it gets an arrestor system installed. Maybe used for the new 5th gen J-35s. China launched their 4th Type 075 helicopter Carrier a few months ago and have 4 being built along with this and the Type 004 fleet carrier being built along with the new drone carrier at the Yangtze river being spotted and two fighting shark drone carriers been built. If they keep going at the rate they have been, by the end of 2020s they'll have caught up or surpassed the USA in carriers 😳 People like to mock china but ten years ago their navy was mostly a littoral force (going by Jane's books and Military balance) now they're (in my opinion) the most powerful navy on earth, that is INSANE. Edit: I forgot how biased this sub is lmfao u/keyconflict7069 blocked me lmao >Yes including the 15km range And ? >I never said they couldn’t only that you understand the lack of experience of maintaining a permanent deployed TG. You've still not provided a source that says permanent deployment requires different training than regular >So you can’t name one. Mate I have lost I'm not even joking >Always was you just can’t understand the concept. No it wasn't >What sort of question is that? Firstly on what planet would that be a scenario and secondly that’s local area defence the role of ships that are not air defenders who do wider area defence. So there you go, exactly my point, not every deployment needs air defence like this because AGAIN it depends on the deployment and what the goal of the task force is, again you're being being FAR too overly simplified >We are talking about out the FREMM capacity to cover air defence for horizon class of course we are comparing air defence of the two classes. Please try and keep up. I'm talking about capabilities but I know you're a bit slow to catch up >Used for local area defence. Long range missiles are used for wider area defence. The RN is planning to stop using the Aster 15 and just take 48 30s then fitting a MK44 VLS loaded with Ceptor to cover the local areas business. This is again why you're being too simple, bit every deployment requires such air coverage >Literally is a 60s missile that been updated. Enough is irrelevant it’s half that of Aster 15 and 8 times less than Aster 30 so completely outclassed and using it over Aster would be as I said watered down air defence. That's like saying a Patriot PAC-3 MSE is an 80s defence system. Again the problem is your criteria is too simple, if your task force parameters were to set up a permanent deployment for a power projection close to shore with no real threats, then there's not much need for coverage like that, if you were deploying a temporary task force to an to an area that to secure it but your enemy doesn't have an air force and just small Drones, you don't need such coverage, your automated Autocannons and projectile defense systems like CIWS along with short Range SAM systems would be enough. Again your problem is you're generalizations and over simplifications and just general lack of sourcing >Iv carefully over many messages explained to you the numbers required to maintain a permanent deployed force. Yet you've provided no evidence >Another strawman. All I have stated is for every ship you need for your deployment you need to times it by 3 to make it a permanently deployed. Try and keep up. You don't though, I remember your two sources, they didn't say it was REQUIRED rather it was just a rule of thumb.

No, PLAN is not the most powerful navy on earth for now. By far, we can say that PLAN is very capable in West Pacific, but still, they are not globally operational, at least not in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean, and they lack the control of many strategic bottlenecks, e.g. Malacca, Lombok, Suez and Magellan. PLAN (and China) may indeed has the industrial production to massively build carriers, but highly unlikely they will do that. That's not necessary for them to rush; instead, they could maintain the current productivity and invest more of their budgets on personnel training and drills. Globally we are suffering from economic recession; starting a new round of naval arms race is against everyone's best interest. My estimation is that by 2050s, PLAN will catch up with USN, and we will see the second naval superpower since 1945.

> My estimation is that by 2050s, PLAN will catch up with USN, and we will see the second naval superpower since 1945. The one strategic element the PLAN will seemingly never have is powerful allies in strategic places. They won't have an equivalent of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Philippines, et. al. in America or even Europe's back yard. They could potentially make some headway in South America but none of the militaries there are as strong as the countries listed above. And further, making headway in South America generally didn't work well for the USSR (nor the people in South America in the places the USSR tried to ally with). That will create some logistical problems for a blue water navy. And that's the biggest benefit the US has, the military hardware debate aside. The other point re: diplomacy: in any imaginable conflict right now, China would almost certainly be the aggressor over Taiwan. We saw with Russia in Ukraine how quickly such a move can alienate a country globally.

>They won't have an equivalent of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Philippines, et. al. in America or even Europe's back yard. While I hate to be didactic around politics (that's beyond this subreddit's purpose), but I have to point out a fact that all the naval force of SK, JP, TW, AU, PH plus whole EU (except RU), has not exceeded the displacement of PLAN. Considering China still has tremendous industrial productivity that is not actively utilized by military, I would not say these forces poses a huge threat to PLAN in far future. If we take a closer look at arms, I don't think PLAN literally sees them as threat. For example, RN's surface ships currently have 576 VLS cells, on 6 Type-45s and 9 Type-23s; yet PLAN's 8 active Type 055 destroyers have 896 VLS cells, all capable of launch long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles; and there are 4 Type 055 destroyers in construction and sea trial, another 4 in plan. I don't pro-war or arms race; but if there were to be arms race or war, the only capable enemy of PLAN is USN, and vice versa. Note: Bringing nukes to battlefield is certainly another story, but both RU, CN and US are capable of launching ICBMs with nuclear warheads. I guess that's not in anyone's best interest, really. >That will create some logistical problems for a blue water navy. And that's the biggest benefit the US has, the military hardware debate aside. I agree. That's why I said "PLAN is not globally operational for now". >The other point re: diplomacy: in any imaginable conflict right now, China would almost certainly be the aggressor over Taiwan. We saw with Russia in Ukraine how quickly such a move can alienate a country globally. I don't quite feel that way. I take no side on that war, but I don't think such "alienate" policy works well on Russia. Russia is full of natural gas, crude oil and grains; for these things, you can always find buyers, and then exchange these raw materials for other imports, one way or another. Such blockades will never work, unless NATO dares to fire upon any merchant ship in/out of Russia, which inevitably will lead to all-out war with Russia. For China, that's a little bit complicated, though. Such policy will create more turmoil to China than Russia, that's for sure. We are talking about a potential invasion that is far larger than any amphibious invasion in history; Operation Overload is just a small potato comparing to that. The very reason that China builds up its naval force is not for Taiwan, but for any potential force intervention from you-know-who. By large we can say, Taiwan's fate is not in her own hands: if the intervention is successful, there will be no invasion; if that fails, Taiwan won't be necessary to make any resistance since Taiwan has no land borders with any other country, not like Poland-Ukraine.

Nope china is absolutely the most powerful China's naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tDP3F0Gng3tVcu5Xt1Zkdwwj17u2jzU8ELpcGGjvVlg/edit?usp=drivesdk US naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1prbzvKQ1KDhC0YCJ_P1_5hNIWoOAE4HkFCPx-wHM8jM/edit?usp=drivesdk Source's, criteria and methodology https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-i4j37e8KT_7jeeQTxB7ZUCrd7JrlGIXrQD8C_L0gk/edit?usp=drivesdk Edit: cry harder goofballs

Let aside the gap on nuclear submarines, both SSN and SSBN; I saw you recognize that PLAN only has 3 fleet carriers, all conventional-powered, yet USN has 12 nuclear-powered fleet carriers, right? Then I really don't understand how you conclude these facts.

That source is so patently absurd that it honestly doesn't warrant even engaging with seriously. Attempting to rank military powers based on quantity and "top trump stats" of materiel is simply a fools endeavour, presenting it as serious analysis alone essentially removes any credibility from the source and the author. China simply does not and has not projected fleet power on a global scale, and has not shown any capability to do so. The PLAN fleet is extensive and appears to be technologically and materially capable, but a lack of soft factors like a blue waters doctrine, international partnerships and experience in global maritime operations put them significantly behind the United States. Any reasonable comparison also cannot be made in a vacuum, a navy is only useful insofar as it is capable of performing the required mission set for its nation and any comparison must be made in the context of the needs of the two nations and how their navies perform these tasks and counter their opponents. And China has yet to show an ability to threaten US hegemony over their dominance of the global oceans, which is what an adversary power would need to do to challenge the US for "best navy".

>That source is so patently absurd that it honestly doesn't warrant even engaging with seriously. Attempting to rank military powers based on quantity and "top trump stats" of materiel is simply a fools endeavour, presenting it as serious analysis alone essentially removes any credibility from the source and the author. So you think publications like Military Balance, Janes World Air Force's, Janes Fighting Ships, Global Firepower are all stupid ? >China simply does not and has not projected fleet power on a global scale, and has not shown any capability to do so. The PLAN fleet is extensive and appears to be technologically and materially capable, but a lack of soft factors like a blue waters doctrine, international partnerships and experience in global maritime operations put them significantly behind the United States. This is just nonsense, I've already explained everything, given the stats, explained the sources and given methodology in number's. You've done nothing but say it's wrong >Any reasonable comparison also cannot be made in a vacuum, a navy is only useful insofar as it is capable of performing the required mission set for its nation and any comparison must be made in the context of the needs of the two nations and how their navies perform these tasks and counter their opponents. And China has yet to show an ability to threaten US hegemony over their dominance of the global oceans, which is what an adversary power would need to do to challenge the US for "best navy". For peer to peer Naval warfare, it's a bit different, for offensive operations at sea, let's say between USN and PLAAN, I'd imagine if this was real, USA would be attacker, so say china invaded Taiwan and USA assembled their navy to take out China's navy, it's likely USA would assemble it's carrier strike groups in sets of 2&3. I can imagine other countries refusing to allow USA to use weapons over fear of china attacking them. Regardless there is 7 problems or 7 reasons why USA would not win a naval war with china regardless if it was offensive at sea or defensive at china. Although an offensive battle it's a 70/30 win lose rare to china and in defense, it's around 95/5 win lose. So 1st problem for USA, It's likely China would have prepared for this and with their vast minelayers to mine the waters, this is a big problem for USA as unless they get help from Japan or EU, their naval Minesweeping and Minehunting capabilities are very very limited. 2nd problem, China's patrol capabilities are far greater, china has much more patrol vessels around the Pacific and Indian ocean and the south china sea coupled with their satellite systems and recon aircraft and over 1,000 UAVs and numerous recon aircraft they have massive Reconnaissance capabilities. 3rd problem China's logistics are far superior to USA having much more logistics ships they can use to arm their ships, they have more logistics vessels with far far greater tonnage cargo capacity and oil barrels capacity. 4th problem, China's naval power is far far far greater than USA, in fact in pure numbers for surface Warships china outnumbers USA 2-1. 5th problem, china has much better resupply and Repair Capabilities with having more logistics vessels, more auxiliary vessels, more small ports, more shipyards, more dry docks and more shipyard Builders. 6th problem for USA, China's Offensive and defensive capabilities in naval warfare outperform the United States, I'm fact china has better Offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities, gun capabilities and more personnel. USA only wins on air assets. For example USA could launch a massive volley of all their anti ship missles and fighters, and by many estimates USA has around ~10,000 Anti ship missles (this is if they used all VLS Cells on all ships) with just less than ~90 large Naval Guns and ~70 small Naval guns (from all ships including coast guard, marines and army) and offcourse nearly ~800 fighters and ~90 attack helicopters. This sounds impressive and it absolutely is but I don't think it's enough, and I'll explain why China has defensive wise for anti ship missles and fighters around ~2,500 short to long range SAMs (half their VLS cells), nearly ~2,000 short range SAMs, ~200 medium and ~300 long range SAMs along with 349 CIWS systems, nearly ~2,000 Autocannons, nearly ~1,500 machine guns nearly ~5,000 decoy Launchers, over ~1,500 radar systems, nearly, nearly ~500 electronic warfare systems. In fact china has around just over 11,000 defensive systems that can intercept or jam anti ship missles and fighters. That's not including China's own fighters and UCAVs or if it was Defensive and next to china China's near ~5,000 non nuclear ballastic missles fired from numerous mobile TEL Launchers, that have range between 500-5,000km and can be accurately hit with chinas many electronic warfare ships and global navigation systems, one of which can at minimum mission kill a cruiser or fleet carrier and at most two can destroy them and offcourse in a defensive scenario china has over 10,000 cruise missiles that have range of 500-2,000km fired from various mobile systems which are akin to ASMs. "What about our Submarines" very good point USA has over 60 non ICBM Subs with nearly ~300 heavy Torpedoes (large enough to sink a destroyer or mission kill a fleet carrier) and over ~500 light Torpedoes (large enough to sink a corvette or mission kill a Frigate), china has nearly ~700 individual sonar Systems for detecting subs along with a whopping over ~2,000 ASW Rockets and nearly ~1,400 depth Charges along with 108 ASW Helicopters and 29 ASW Planes. (I have the full stats, including exact number of exact type of ships, exact numbers of VLS Cells, ASM Launchers, torpedo tubes, radar systems, guns etc. in my naval capabilities section) 7th and final problem USA has, is their pretty pathetic (relative to china) production capabilities. For context in ten years USA has struggled to retrofit a few old Nimitz, build two new 100,000 ton ships, a handful of 40,0000 ton ships, 5x 8,000-20,000 ton ships, a few 9,000 ton ships, 10x 3,000 ton ship, over 10 1,200 ton ships , 40 300 ton ships, 3x Stealth 13,000 ton ships and a handful of nuclear subs, china in a decade has built 2x 70,000-90,000 ton ships, 4x 40,000 ton ships, 60x 200-12,000 ton ships, 8x stealth 11,000 ton ships, 2 10,000 ton ships, 30x 6-8,000 ton ships, 50x 2-4,000 ton ships, over 100x 400-1,500 ton ships, over 200x 100-300 ton ships, 30x 300-4,000 ton ships, 10x 4,000-10,000 ton subs and over 10x 1,000-3,000 ton subs. China in 10 years has went from a minor naval power to the most powerful navy on earth, this number will shock you, USA builds less than HALF of ONE percent of all ships on earth, china builds nearly HALF of ALL the world's ships. If you want the exact stats, please check my USA and China total Naval Capabilities. And it is total Naval, as in total war, coast guard and merchant Ships are used (source WWII, Vietnam war and Falklands war) but yeah, China's naval power is insane, it's only matched by their insane production capabilities, for context but the most powerful military, it explains why the anti china bandwagon has been in full steam ahead by USA, and nothing shows this more when Joe Biden was dismissing claims about Chinese military strength and was saying "we the United States of America are the most powerful country on earth" in 2023 and everyone in Congress was clapping APART from the joint chiefs and Military generals, who know the truth.

Lay off the copium bro. Any source with the US Navy as #3 is clearly unserious. 

Like, is PLAN great for border protection and regional power projection? Yes. Can they do anything else? No, and certainly not by 2029.

Listing Russia as military superpower is hilarious, can even conquer more than 1/3 of Ukraine and hasn’t made significant gains for 2 years against an adversary with old NATO stock. Unserious source from an unserious person regurgitated by an unserious Redditor

[удалено]

I see you've made no counter arguments

[удалено]

I love when people don't have the intelligence to understand what they're reading. Straight from SMR Methodology For military stocks, we get a base number of equipment stocks from our stock sources. We have been lended or bought a few books mostly from eBay, Book shops, Libraries and marketplaces. These are respected military analysis groups like Jane's and Military balance that we've been lucky to come across that are only 1-5 years old (for storage stocks and some others and capabilities we use books that go back 1-30 years) we also talk to other people online, and have our group of friends who are good at using other open source information from various sites. Our system is to use our various stock sources to get a number from each one from our various edition of our stock sources, (we don't use any number from earlier than 10 years for naval vessels and 20 years for active service and operational reserve for aircraft and vehicles and up to 20 for what's in permanent storage relative to naval vessels, 30 years for aircraft and 40 years for vehicles) we then get all those numbers together to arrive at an average between them, we then use our governments and organisations & media stock sources to try and work out what the minimum number likely is based on our research and what the highest, we'll then use what our average number was Vs what the research shows it is likely then try get a reasonable number from that, unless of course most of our stock sources and research agree. So basically for X or Y equipment we would use our stock sources dating back up to 10 years, we'd then get each number from each year and from each source, we'd get an average for each year based on the numbers from the stock sources, we'd then use our details of stocks sources along with governments, defence contractors and organisations and media sources to try and work out what an accurate number would be in relation to total active service and operational reserve then use that number. There's A LOT of propaganda about them, even from so called respectable sources, especially about countries like Russia, China and Iran. For example for china J-20 estimate from FlightGlobal World Air Forces 2023 at 11, 2024 at 19, Military Factory in 2024 at 55, War Power at 2023 have it at 115, with Military balance 2023 being around 210-250 and 22 around ~100, 21 around ~30 and 19 around ~10, Global Security being 300 in 2024, 250 in 2023, 170 in 2022 and 50 in 2021, jane's world air force being 100-150 2-3 years ago, and EUAT being 400 in 2024, with confirmed satellite and photographic images showing over 170 independent J-20A aircraft and on average 30-50 being built every year since 2018. So when we started it was at 250 after average in early 2023, but it's been nearly a year since then so we added another 20 with another 30-50 getting added this year, so currently it stands at 300. Another example being Iran's rocket boats, global security has them at 2,000-4,000, Iran military capabilities IISS at 3,000-5,000 so went with 3,000. T-14 Armata for example, had around 24-56 prototypes according to initial reports and using past russian tank prototype builds, with around 40 batch set for low production in 2021-2022 according to Rostec. So averaged it off at 80. Karrar Tanks were set for 800 total in the 2020s with 150 built in 2020-2021 and 600 earmarked for 2021-2025 so averaged it off at 500. Once our numbers are set, we stick to them. New equipment added depends on the country, for countries like China and Iran that don't give out much public information we add new equipment regularly, which is usually quarterly based on what's in active production and is done on confirmed or multiple source backed estimates. Countries like USA, Russia, EU, India that has more open transparency although still sometimes difficult depending on the equipment is done at least quarterly using Sam's methodology as previous paragraph or regularly whenever new stock is reported added, for example Russia regularly has batches of ~30 T-90Ms made every month or so and has several Yak-130, Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-34M and Su-57 built in usually 4-7 groups every 1-3 months depending on rate. Some equipment like artillery guns, mortars and vehicles are hard to gauge, if there's no source will find how much was made and try find out if any were destroyed, historical use or how much other countries use in relation to their military size, example are russian BM Mortar, this number is arrived at by looking at how many mortars there are for each squad then multiplying it by how many squads in company then multiplying by regiment etc. another example is Russia's SPG-9, from sources they say it was produced in extremely large numbers (so likely around 40,000-80,000 units) after looking up how many were exported, how effective they are and how many other equipment Russia uses, averaged it off at 4,500 in use and reserve and 5,000 in storage. For equipment like ATGMs, Manpads, Manpats etc. our old system used to have lowest estimates to highest but I'm now just going to be using the highest overall estimates, some data is very hard to get, it's easier to do if there's an indicator on how many a country built like USA Stinger at ~70,000 (with around ~10,000 given away or lost) and TOW at ~700,000 but for others it's harder you need to look at how many total Manpads were built in world look at how many are known built then try to get a reasonable number, for example it's estimated that the Russians built nearly 1 million Malyutkas systems and over 800,000 Fagots, Konkurs, Metis, Metis-M and Kornet systems but many were used beyond repair, destroyed or just junked along with around ~300,000 Strela-2, Strela-3, Igla and Verba systems built from 1960s to today.

For the capabilities of equipment like range, targeting systems and technology we use our capabilities sources to get the same numbers down, if there is different explanations like for example some sources state that China's new PL-21 has ranges up to 500km, with most saying over 400km and lowest estimates being 300km, so it's under EBVR+ category as being 400km and over similar to R-37M. EW systems and communication systems are very hard to gauge, Some stuff can be very hard to gauge, if there's absolutely no numbers known, will look up either 1. Statements by officials about how many are to be procured and in what timeframe Or 2. How many they had historically of older systems or 3. How many other countries had such Systems that had similar military capabilities or 4. How much they paid for the program and systems and either how much each system cost. For variants unless stated on at least two stock sources, I get the number of vehicles from my stock list then research how many were or were planned to (if past) be upgraded then look at past modernisation programs to see if X country has struggled to fulfil such orders and try to come to an educated guess based on how many seen, how many sold and any possible surging documentation then arriving at a percentage to grade as an upgraded variant then use that number. An example of logistics is if I can't find a current number for any source I'll just try to find the last year there was a credible number, then check the country's industry to see if it has risen or decreased, then look up how it increased over years then try to get a number from that. Numbers of stocks in storage are very hard to gauge, some of it is, such as statements by stock sources or governments. Others are by Manuel counting like aircraft and tank boneyards, others are digging up vehicles or equipment made Vs destroyed, sold or scrapped then getting an average from various sources unless they all agree. I want to be as accurate as possible and don't want people accusing me of bias when I'm not. We've been collecting more old Military Balance and Jane's books to get a better idea at how much equipment is kept in permanent storage. For capabilities primarily use my details of equipment sources such then cross reference with each of my sourced military organisations, governments and defence contractors, to eliminate bias and if numbers or capabilities can't agree try to get an average. It's a LOT of looking at PDFs from old military Manuel's and speaking to people on forums, for example you'd be surprised how many different sources have different information and some that just outright lie like the ones saying China's J-20 RCS minimum is 0.1m² when it's unknown or Su-57 RCS minimum being 0.5m² when that's also unknown and both make no sense when you understand stealth technology and the intended average on original patent prototype and scattering simulations. Another one being EMB World Air Forces saying Russia only has 1 Su-57 when this is debunkable with literally video and photo evidence. National Interest, Warrior Maven, Global Defense Corp and Defense Express are the worst offenders of this, for Military organisations anyway IMO, it's practically extremist propaganda what they do in some articles (check some of their Abrams Vs Armata articles, it's hilarious), in fact anything to do with Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean equipment, even so called respectable groups like Janes or IISS you have to be careful, a good trick for knowing if a group has a bias or possible agenda is look at who owns them or has a controlling share in their stock or if the author has, red flags are enemy governments (or their politicians) and/or opposition defence contractors. For logistical abilities, production capabilities, natural resources and economic capital get info primarily from governments, WTO, IMF etc. then cross reference with specialist organisations. We have multiple people helping us with this research. Once we get all our data we compile it and then one of us will start writing it out. But what people need to know is that our system uses an average, so we are not taking one source, we use several then just get an average from two numbers, the HLA and LLA, or high/low likeliest amounts, basically just what's the lowest reasonable number and what's the highest, our number will be in the middle and our final number will be based on our research done by organisations, defence contractors and governments, because at the end of the day especially with countries like Iran, china and Russia, it's largely still just estimations, (even by groups like IISS and Jane's) only governments, high up military and those involved in military acquisition will know the true numbers. Regardless, exact sources will be given

Our rankings of army, navy and air force are based on 9 to 5 factors. CLEMP applies to Army, Navy and Air force. Army So this is a countries land force capabilities so stuff like Tanks, artillery Guns, SAM Launchers etc, technological generation of vehicles matters, so for example 10 4th gen tanks is better than 20 3rd gen tanks, it's a simple 1⁄2 rule i follow, for example 20 4th gen to 40 3rd gen to 80 2nd gen to 160 1st gen. This is proven by real world examples like in Iraq and Ukraine when a single M1A1 Abrams took out several 1st gen Type 59s and T-54s or the war in Ukraine when a single T-90M took out several T-64Bs and Leopard 2A4s, of course it's not definitive as in same conflicts a downgraded T-72M with outdated soviet sabots mission killed an M1A1 Abrams and an old T-64B destroyed a T-90M and two 3rd Gen Bradleys mission killed one. Air Force This is a country's stocks of total aircraft, including fighters, attack aircraft, AEW&C Aircraft, helicopters etc. possibly in Update 6, Firepower could be added so the amount of hardpoints, ordinance Capacity and Autocannons. Navy This is a country's sea capabilities, so all military naval assets are counted including coast guard, Army, Marines, navy and air force. Defined by 1. Capabilities. • so this is the capabilities of the vehicle, ship or equipment in question such as technological generation. 2. Logistics. • so the logistical aspect of keeping said forces supplied, so how many logistics ships or military transports. 3. Equipment. • so basically how much equipment is there. 4. Maintenance. • So this is the aspect of a country's ability to and ease of fixing and maintaining their stuff, so how many shipyards, aircraft technicians and mechanics. 5. Production. • so how much a country can build on a certain thing. So how many tank & aircraft factories or Shipyards do they have? Supported by a countries overall Logistical Abilities These are countries' logistics which are based on 4 factors: geography, statistics, domestic hubs and foreign hubs which are things like railways, population, labour force, roadways, military bases, trucks, civilian vehicles, satellites, ships etc. Air force bases are full fledged bases not air stations and navy bases are full naval bases with relevant facilities so naval stations don't count, all others are counted towards military bases and only full on bases, camps or stations, so small stations, checkpoints and posts don't count as they're only manned with few soldiers and have little logistical value and are hard to count for example USA and China have hundreds if not thousands of army stations. Same with satellites, only satellites actually owned and operated by the military are counted except navigation satellites. Production Capabilities These are a country's manufacturing capabilities and are defined by 3 things which are Global production, Military factories and Industry. Combat Manpower This is a countries total Combat trained population so active service, military reserves, paramilitary and police forces. Military Technology This is a countries technological capabilities regarding military weapons like generations of missiles, tanks, ATGMs, manpads, radars and so on, only in production weapons count or weapons passed prototype testing with definitive date set for production and only if they are made by that country or their defence contractors so for example US hypersonic missiles aren't counted towards their abilities as they are just early prototype and have no date for production, however US ERBVRAAMs like AIM-260 JTAM are not in production but are slated for production in 2024 so are counted. The F-35 isn't counted as 5th Gen fighters for the EU as they are not built by them. Countries tech are rated ✔️ and ❌, ✔️ for highest tech known and ❌ for other, whoever scores highest numbers of ✔️ gets highest place and if it's draw they are equal. Natural Resources This is a country's capabilities for resources, so we include a number of resource facilities like offshore oil rigs and LNG Refineries, we also include energy so how many power plants and power production and we also include production, reserves and consumption of Liquid Natural Gas, Oil and Coal. Economic Capital This is a country's total economic power, so we base this on 3 factors, Gross Domestic Product like GDP Nominal & GDP PPP, Spending and Trade so tax revenue and expenses, defence spending, foreign reserves & gold Reserves and credit and debt so amount of foreign investment, market cap, credit rating & global current account. You're j

Sources for SMR Base Sources for Stocks International Institute for Strategic Studies Military Balance 2005/2006, 2006, 2009, 2014, 2019, 2021 & 2023, Armed Forces eu, Lowy Institute, Defense Intelligence Agency: Threat Reports, Janes Defence Weekly, Military Balance+, Global Security, Global Firepower, Military Factory, Military Wiki, Military Today, Weapons Systems, Army Recognition, Jane's Fighting Ships 2010/2011 & 2020/2021, Jane's World Air Forces 2007, 2013 & 2021, Jane's World Armies 2019 & 2021, World Directory of Modern Military Aviation, Jane's World Air Force's 2002 & 2013, Jane's World Navies 2022, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1988/1989, 1991/1992, 2008/2009, 2019/2020 & 2020/2021, Navypedia, War Power, FlightGlobal World Air Forces 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024, Seaforth World Naval Review 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 & 2024. Base Sources for Details of Vehicles, Aircraft, Ships and Equipment Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems 2006/2007, Jane's World Aircraft 1992, Jane's Naval Review 1985, Jane's Electronic Mission Aircraft 2009, Jane's Naval Weapons 2020/2021, Jane's Infantry Weapons 2021/2022, Jane's Strategic Weapons 2012/2013, Jane’s Land Based Air Defence Systems 1991/1992 & 1997/1998, Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide 1993, 1999, 2002 & 2005, Jane's US Military Aircraft Recognition Guide, Jane's Warship Recognition Guide 2006, Military Factory, Military Wiki, Military Today, Weapons Systems, Army Recognition, Global Security, Misselry, Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide, The World Factbook, Jane's Tank Recognition Guide 2000, Jane's Tank and Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide 2002, Tank Encyclopedia, Aviation Museums and Collections of The Rest of the World, Antonov's Turboprop Twins, African MiGs, Bernard Ireland: Warship Construction, Robert Jackson: The Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft, The armies of the NATO nations: Organization, concept of war, weapons and equipment, Army & Navy Technology, OE Data Integration Network, Doug Richardson: Naval Armament, Aircraft Carriers of the World. Base Sources for Manufacturing, Logistics, Resources and Capital Governments, Census Data, World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, JMC, Wikipedia, Statista, IBIS World, EURACTIV, World's Top Exports, Financial Times, World Bank, World Metres, Investopedia, Our World in Data, CUfinder, Rentech. Base Sources for Combat History of Equipment Aerial Warfare Over the South Arabian Peninsula, 1962-1994, Armed Conflicts, Overmans 2000, Imperial War Museum, The Korean War: A History, Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII, The Korean War Volumes, WWII: America at War, Oxford Companion to WWII, Rybar, History Legends, Defense Politics Asia, Population Statistics, Watson Institute: Cost of War, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures. Governments U.S. Defense Department, Israeli Defense Forces, Russian Ministry of Defense, European Commission, European Defence Agency, Armed Forces of Ukraine, French Ministry of Armed Forces, Italian Ministry of Defense, German Federal Defence Ministry, China's Ministry of National Defence, Spanish Defence Ministry, Poland Ministry of National Defence, British Ministry of Defence, Estonian Defence Ministry. Organisations, Media & Publications Center for Strategic and International Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Naval watch, Defence News, Nation Master, Defence Express, Flight Global, Real Clear Defence, AeroFlight, CAAT, Forbes, Naval News, Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, Air and Space Forces, Army Guide, EurAsiantimes, WeaponsSystems, Bloomberg, SIPRI, Mordor Intelligence, CZ Defence, Bulgaria military, Defense Stock, Radar Tutorial, Real Clear Defence, Flight International World Air Forces Directory, Air International Military Transport Aircraft Directory, The Chinese Military Expanding Capabilities, Russia's New Ground Force's. Defence Contractors Lockheed Martin, BAE systems, Leonardo, Dassault, Boeing, Sukhoi, Rostec, Rheinmetall, Saab Group, Raytheon, Honeywell, Airbus, Defenture BV, Euro-Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thyssen Grrap, JSC, Almaz-Antey, Norinco, Thales, Almaz-Antey, General Dynamics, Kalashnikov, Uralvagonzavod, Czech Defence Systems. Note Some of these sources are god awful and just propaganda (Defence Express, Forbes, Rybar and National Interest looking at you) but they still contain some useful information (mainly about whatever country they shill) stock sources are usually 'objectively' credible at least

[удалено]

Are you blind ? Again the 3-5-6 system. A countries navy, air force and land force defined by capabilities, logistics, numbers, maintenance and production capabilities. Supported by a countries overall combat Manpower, production capabilities, economic capital, logistical abilities, natural resources and military technology. It's all there, honestly this sub is as big a bunch of cry babies as tank porn, none of you can engage in constructive feedback or arguments it's just pure cope and west stuff good east stuff bad. It's fucking laughable, absolutely pathetic as well

[удалено]

The problem with your system is it’s to binary. For example you argue a type 003 is better than a Nimitz correct?

Those are just our opinions not relevant to actual categories. Again explain what you mean

Okay another example, you think the EU has better logistics to sustain blue water operations.

Well yeah, overall they win on the relevant factors which is number of logistics ships, variety of logistics ships, number of at sea Replenishment Ships, overall cargo capacity of logistics ships, overall oil battles capacity and number of small and large Ports

Exactly my point. This completely ignores experience. Can EU nations RAS? Of course Can a single EU nation maintain a TG indefinitely? No to do so they would have to rely on working as a joint military to something they don’t do routinely. The US maintains multiple TG constantly and has the experience of doing this for decades. It’s of little use to just look at numbers and ignore experience. Look at how not operating a carrier for a few years affected the RN and all of the experience of carrier ops that was lost.

Experience? Italy, Spain, France and Germany have massive experience, Italy and France are on deployments now. They already have a military structure Several EU countries have joint exchange programs for their military and there is the European defence agency and other CSDP, Common security and defence policy agencies who's goals are to promote cooperation and ensure European defence, the European Union already has a military structure with the EEAS and EUMS which are European External Action Service and European Union Military Staff, the European Union has its own military strike forces, battle groups and naval grous, the European Union was just an economic union at start, now it's a legislative and defensive union, the European Defence Forces or European Union Military already have multiple military operations around the world I'll list a few *Operation Artemis* European Union army military operations in Congo *Operation Concordia* EU army operations in former Yugoslavia *Operation Sophia* was EU navy operation in Lybia I mean they literally set up the EUMAM, the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine which where EU military commanders give training to Ukrainian soldiers. So whilst the European Union isn't like the USSR and has a single controlling Military as it's membes CAN act independent , they absolutely have a formal military structure and agencies and commanders dedicated to its defence, so if a member state was attacked like Sweden or Austria, the EU already has the structures in place to coordinate defence capabilities and if they wanted to attack they have the infrastructure for the army, navy and air force there, to use their combined military. >ook at how not operating a carrier for a few years affected the RN and all of the experience of carrier ops that was lost. It hasn't effected it at all, the problems aren't experience but lack of funding, I've stayed in Britain for over a decade now, MOD has been chronically underfunded

But again experience isn't relevant, do you unironically believe that countries don't do training?

There is a vast difference to training and actually sustaining a task group at range. The EU does have deployments but they are temporary the US has permanent presence with multiple CSGs across the globe. >It hasn't effected it at all, the problems aren't experience but lack of funding, I've stayed in Britain for over a decade now, MOD has been chronically underfunded It absolutely has the U.K. has had to go through a lot to regain it’s carrier capability

I’m Chinese and I appreciate the love for the PLAN but this just ain’t true, the USN just is the most formidable naval power on Earth, it’s unarguable

I don't love the PLAN I'm just stating what the numbers say

The US Navy is the most powerful, no one disputes that. Tonnage alone should show you that.

That's not an argument, also tonnage is irrelevant to naval warfare. Capabilities of Warships, logistics, maintenance Capabilities, numbers and variety and production capabilities are what define naval warfare. If you have a different opinion let's hear it

While you do have a point. especially in this era, we should also take the Naval Aviation in huge consideration if we’re to talk the overall capacities of a Navy. Especially when that’s where the US appears to be unmatched.

China's naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tDP3F0Gng3tVcu5Xt1Zkdwwj17u2jzU8ELpcGGjvVlg/edit?usp=drivesdk US naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1prbzvKQ1KDhC0YCJ_P1_5hNIWoOAE4HkFCPx-wHM8jM/edit?usp=drivesdk Source's, criteria and methodology https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-i4j37e8KT_7jeeQTxB7ZUCrd7JrlGIXrQD8C_L0gk/edit?usp=drivesdk

Not doubting there capabilities. however, papers alone can’t prove anything especially when experience is a critical basis. More predominantly when we compare them to US Navy, a naval superpower that’s basically in constant war for more or less a century.

What experience? China has naval experience in the Chinese civil war, the Korean war and various skirmishes it's had. They regularly train and hold naval drills. The only real post WWII naval experience USA has was operation praying mantis. Stats will always win usually, Germany had superior tactics in WWII yet it didn't matter when they came up against the USSR because tactics only take you so far, it doesn't matter how well you are, if you're tactics can Allow you to best the enemy at a one 1-2 ratio its irrelevant if they can pusu that to 1-3, 1-4, 1-5 etc

All. combat, for how they long they’re training for a huge war, knowledge etc. the same thing can be said to Russia which is seen as the 2nd most powerful army before their unlawful invasion of their neighbor, also note that prior to that, Russia also had some experiences. Also, all we can do now is to assume as the PRC’s Navy still holds huge mystery and capabilities that they’re yet to prove in which internet people has no ability to verify without bias.

>the same thing can be said to Russia which is seen as the 2nd most powerful army before their unlawful invasion of their neighbor, also note that prior to that, Russia also had some experiences. Russia still has the second most powerful land force behind china even after their illegal bombing of Kiev and lawful invasion of Donetsk >Also, all we can do now is to assume as the PRC’s Navy still holds huge mystery and capabilities that they’re yet to prove in which internet people has no ability to verify without bias. You can literally use that exact same logic with USA

>lawful invasion of Donetsk You finally showed your true color, while you do have some points and provided sources etc. that sentence alone is a proof of what kind of human you are in which not worthy of further discussion with.

Tonnage and capability are strongly correlated though. US aircraft carriers don't displace 100,000 tonnes because it looks cool on paper, they do so because it enables them to do stuff that smaller ships cannot.

They're not though, again capabilities are important like how many weapons systems or aircraft can be launched how heavy the ships are is irrelevant

How heavy the ships are directly correlates with the number of weapon systems, aircraft that can be carried, and sortie generation rates. A larger (i.e. heavier) ship has more internal volume, which is absolutely critical for carriers. This means larger magazines for bomb and missile storage, larger fuel tanks for ships and aircraft fuel increasing the time they can operate independently of resupply, and larger hangar and flight decks for improved aviation capability. The latter is extremely important, as if not only allows for larger air wings but allows a ship to operate aircraft more efficiently, with room to move the aircraft around without getting in the way. This ship has a particularly clear example. Let’s assume this ship can operate J-35s (which given the size would be tight) and (because I have that data) the Chinese EMALS can launch an aircraft every 80 seconds like the US C-13 catapult. To launch twelve J-35s would take the Type 076 a total of 14:40 (with the first launch as 0:00, so 11x80 resets), while *Fujian* would take 4:53 (third catapult launches first at 0:53, then three more). Those twelve J-35s would be at least 50% of the Type 076 air wing, while for *Fujian* we’re talking about 25-35% of the air wing. This is entirely due to the larger size of the latter carrier. Every study of smaller carriers I have seen, from concepts to actual combat experience, shows smaller carriers are less effective than larger carriers on almost every metric except cost. You do want smaller carriers in some circumstances where the extra capability is not needed, but in those cases you are deliberately sacrificing capability.

>How heavy the ships are directly correlates with the number of weapon systems, aircraft that can be carried, and sortie generation rates. A larger (i.e. heavier) ship has more internal volume, which is absolutely critical for carriers. This means larger magazines for bomb and missile storage, larger fuel tanks for ships and aircraft fuel increasing the time they can operate independently of resupply, and larger hangar and flight decks for improved aviation capability. The latter is extremely important, as if not only allows for larger air wings but allows a ship to operate aircraft more efficiently, with room to move the aircraft around without getting in the way. Nope, correlation isn't causation. >This ship has a particularly clear example. Let’s assume this ship can operate J-35s (which given the size would be tight) and (because I have that data) the Chinese EMALS can launch an aircraft every 80 seconds like the US C-13 catapult. To launch twelve J-35s would take the Type 076 a total of 14:40 (with the first launch as 0:00, so 11x80 resets), while Fujian would take 4:53 (third catapult launches first at 0:53, then three more). Those twelve J-35s would be at least 50% of the Type 076 air wing, while for Fujian we’re talking about 25-35% of the air wing. This is entirely due to the larger size of the latter carrier. This is pure speculation >Every study of smaller carriers I have seen, from concepts to actual combat experience, shows smaller carriers are less effective than larger carriers on almost every metric except cost. You do want smaller carriers in some circumstances where the extra capability is not needed, but in those cases you are deliberately sacrificing capability. Again this is irrelevant to overall naval warfare of which china wins

>>How heavy the ships are directly correlates with the number of weapon systems … >Nope, correlation isn't causation. When you design something explicitly for a purpose, it absolutely is causation. I recommend you read any book on warship design, as it’s very clear your knowledge is minimal (from this and other discussions). Friedman is a good place to start and pretty thorough, and since we’re discussing carriers I’d recommend his *U.S. Aircraft Carriers*. Each chapter discusses the design tradeoffs that went into a particular design or set of designs, and with extensive discussions of how volume limited carriers are.

>When you design something explicitly for a purpose, it absolutely is causation. Nope, capabilities of ships should be included as a factor tonnage, nope >I recommend you read any book on warship design, as it’s very clear your knowledge is minimal (from this and other discussions). Friedman is a good place to start and pretty thorough, and since we’re discussing carriers I’d recommend his U.S. Aircraft Carriers. Each chapter discusses the design tradeoffs that went into a particular design or set of designs, and with extensive discussions of how volume limited carriers are. Phahahahahaha 😭 holy shit, mate I myself own Janes Naval Armament and Aircraft Carriers of the world and Warship construction by Bernard Ireland, aswell as various Janes Naval Reviews and my friends own various Janes Fighting Ships editions and janes naval weapons books. I am very well versed. From my extensive research into the subject me along with my friends have concluded that 5 factors matter for naval warfare. Capabilities of Warships, logistics, maintenance Capabilities, number and Variety of vessels and production capabilities. Not tonnage not carriers

It definitely does, China has mostly coastal ships. The US has bigger ships which equals more fire power and much longer range)

That’s patently false. Apart from the Type 056A corvette, all major Chinese warship classes are capable of expeditionary ops.

Not across an ocean

That depends on the AOR fleet, and the PLAN operates a decent amount of them. End of the day the PLAN cares about the Indo Pacific region, as well as being able to sortie into the Middle East to protect their supply routes, they have the capability to do so. They can’t operate off the coast of the USA or in the Atlantic just yet, but it’s not an expectation of their current fleet so it’s kinda irrelevant.

No, no they don't.

The PLA has the largest resupply fleet outside of the US. They've been operating around the red sea for more than a decade. Sure, they have less logistical capacity for blue water operations compared to the US, but they are ahead of everyone else.

I mean that’s what its meant to do, its not meant to attack the US mainland lol

What??? LOL

He's correct, just because it's a ship doesn't mean it has the logistical capabilities to cross and ocean. This is fuel, food, maintenance etc... The vast majority of Chinese ships to date are incapable of such ops as they have no need to be able to. The US fleets go for months on end and get resupplied at sea. Example US nuke subs surface every few weeks or months for food and that's about it. China also counts their coast guard which the US does not

AOE, AOR and AOL are a thing. Does a Wasp, Tico or AB “cross the oceans” without them?

Yes but they can be easily taken out. A problem which the US is also facing and is trying to solve.

Yes the average tonnage of a Chinese ship is 2941 tons to an average of 7578 tons for a US ship

Yes, now tell me how 055s, 052s and 054As can’t cross oceans, but Ticos and ABs can?

It's not about literally being able to cross the ocean, anything bigger than a seadoo can do that. It's about being able to wage a war on the other side of the ocean, which the PLAN doesn't seem to have the capacity to do, *yet*. All the experience, logistics, support ships etc are either not there or unproven, or sometimes both

First define what type of ships you’re talking about (e.g. surface combatants), and what your definition of firepower is here (e.g. anti-air, land attack, or anti-ship).

All of them. I cant see a sphere where China is superior to the US. The US Navy budget is higher then the whole Chinese Military budget….

Of course China’s *entire* military budget is larger than the USN’s, what a silly claim. You should just stop here, if such basic knowledge is alien to you. China has better shipborne radars, better AShMs, better ASuW and ASW capability (in their region), and likely better EMCATs (which will be confirmed soon). And please do tell, what USN surface combatant is more capable than 055s on individual ship, fleet of ships, and system of systems bases (as in plural of “basis”)?

Are you joking? Look up the USN and the Chinese military budget!

Oh wow, you came back for more? - *”[The Department of the Navy is asking for a total of $257.6 billion, with $203.9 billion for the Navy and $53.7 billion for the Marine Corps. The numbers are a .7 percent increase above last year’s request, according to a Navy summary. Last year’s Fiscal Year 2024 submission sought $255.8 billion for the Department of the Navy, broken out with $202.5 billion for the Navy and $53.2 billion for the Marine Corps](https://news.usni.org/2024/03/11/new-navy-budget-seeks-6-battle-force-ships-10-decommissions-in-fy-2025#:~:text=The%20numbers%20are%20a%20.,billion%20for%20the%20Marine%20Corps).”* - China’s official government published expenditure for 2024 is $231B. However, there are many disputes on this with [2022 figures from SIPRI and IISS at $292B and $319B](https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/), respectively. And that’s 2 years old, they increase it every year. And all that is before you even factor in PPP, cost of wages and cost of living.

Well 257 > 231, so he's correct when going by official numbers. Sure the real numbers are assessed to likely be higher but based on official publicly available numbers he is still correct

Same for the Chinese, wages and cost of living is not included. (They got 2 million soldiers and the USN has “only” 400.000)

Are you a bot or?

China the country for being unoriginal when it comes to domestic designs seems to have surpassed the strongest military in the world in every aspect of naval warfare, they are just another Russia but made to look "modern" or "high tech". Just turds covered in glitter and China will never surpass the US when it comes to military capablities. You all know how capabale Chinese warships are on paper and what the CCP say, but thats not always the case is it? Russia 1st Hypersonic missile which is so good the scientists are on trial for treason. The Chinese navy with their radar that can claim to scan to australia, which wont wont because on the curvature of the earth. So what we have here is another Russia, made to look more advanced, but when push comes to shove, they will be using the same tactics of meat waves and general stupidity. But oh no, we have to believe everything from a country known for paiting its mountains green to meet enviromental targets and have their largest waterfall be pumped from a water pipe. So pop off how china is better.....

These are strange claims. I would caution anyone equating the PLA to the RuAF, the two are not similar in the slightest. The PLA has never really claimed anything about their military. China, unlike Russia has the necessary industrial capacity and technology to actually compete. Also, OTH radars exist, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information.

You don't know what you're talking about

I do, chinas ships don’t have the capabilities the US’s ships have. Not saying that the Chinese Navy isn’t dangerous.

Yes they do, they both use the same technology with VLS Cells and guided missles.

They don’t

Phahahahahaha 😭🤣🤣 how do they not ? You can literally see the VLS Cells on their ships, fucking hell man, just denying reality at this point

Yes they have VLC Cells, that does not mean that they are as capable as their counterparts…..

You have no idea what you are talking about. If USN were to agree with you, they won't seriously see PLAN as a big threat in West Pacific. You could read some from Pentagon, see how they analyze the situation and how they want to react.

I don't get this dismissal towards the PLA. They are a very serious threat and any conflict should be taken very seriously.  While I'm happy that those actually in defense see it this way, and trying to prepare accordingly, the views in the public are tragically awful.

You need to calm down with these statements you’re making, they are not fully grounded in facts. Just be patient and logical, the most important virtues in PLA watching. You’re on the verge of some weird “Jai Sino” style fantasy here. I am pro multipolarity, so hence (very) pro China, but this is just embarrassing. I’m not going to take the effort to point it all out to you, but if you want, you can take your takes to somewhere like SDF for some painful education.

>You need to calm down with these statements you’re making, they are not fully grounded in facts. Just be patient and logical, the most important virtues in PLA watching. You’re on the verge of some weird “Jai Sino” style fantasy here. Sounds like you're just butthurt >I am pro multipolarity, so hence (very) pro China, but this is just embarrassing. I’m not going to take the effort to point it all out to you, but if you want, you can take your takes to somewhere like SDF for some painful education. Make an argument then, this is what I fucking love, everyone is happy to say I'm wrong but not one of you can actually make a counter argument without just saying bull shit like "china tech is bad" "mUh tOnNaGe" "mUh cArRiErS" no actual arguments. Again our system is based on 5 factors, that I've already explained, please if you think other factors define naval warfare then let me hear them, in always open to constructive feedback, heck we added more information to our naval warfare section based on feedback. So cmon let's hear this pAiNfUl eDucAtIoN

Do you know who you’re talking to? I love where your heart’s at, but leave this “Jai Hind with Chinese characteristics” at home.

Some random who clearly hasn't done the research if they're saying this stuff

Name 3 Big Shrimps you follow (including Weibo handles) Where is your evidence of a 2nd batch of 4 075s under construction (and why not 4 076s instead) We are about 30 Type 09-Vs away from sub-surface supremacy (in the region) You don’t even know that Type 076 will definitely have Ma Weiming’s arresting gear. You probably didn’t even know what an LHA was, all those years ago when we were pouring over the tender papers that announced 076 was going to be a thing. That drone carrier on the river is a testing platform. And for goodness sake, what the hell is a “Fighting Shark drone carrier”??? Even if you want to count your fictitious drone carriers as carriers, by the end of 2029, PLAN will not have more than 21 “carriers” (count based on 11 CVNs and 10 LHD/As of the USN) You haven’t even properly laid out the criteria that you’re basing your claims on, which is needed to clearly understand whether tonnage is an important factor or not in any specific given narrowly defined assessment. When did I say China’s tech is bad? And why would I say it when PLAN leads in shipborne radars, ASW, ASuW, and EMCATs. You sound more like a troll, attempting to use some sort of reverse psychology to discredit China.

They may have more ships total, but I think it's interesting what they count as a warship. Let's look at the numbers quickly. The USN has 220 ocean going warships. The PLAN has 238. Seems like the Chinese navy wins, right? Debatable. Naval warfare is much more complex than just numbers. Naval strategy is build strategy, yes. But it does not matter much, when all your shipyards are in strike range of your enemy. I don't care how good an AA defence system is, some strikes will always get through. Most of US shipbuilding is on the East cost, relatively safe from harm. Also, tonnage matters. It's what allows the ship to have the number of weapons it has. Let's compare the Arleigh Burke to the two newest destroyers in PLAN. The Type 55 nad the Type 52D. We're looking at the VLS count specifically. Arleigh Burke class (8 400 - 9 900 metric tons, depending on Flight) - 90 (Flight I and II)/96 (Flight IIA and III) VLS cells Type 55 (sometimes called a cruiser)(13 300 metric tons) - 112 VLS cells Type 52D (7 500 metric tons) - 64 VLS cells. So while the tonnage may not have that much value in the eyes of the public, it is very important.

dont forget the ships of other nations too. china fights alone while US fights with allied nations, ie India, Japan, Philippines, Australia, etc. maybe also EU naves will join

plus their airforces as well.

lol Your allied nation India is busy with killing people in West. At best India would stay neutral and benefit, wouldn't fight against China. India is avoding fighting China despite border clashs etc. if you think they will fight for sake of US you are deluded. India wouldn't risk its trade with China. Also CHina basically owns Australia which dependent on trade with CHina too much too. Philippines's navy is joke. EU wouldn't fight against CHina either. They don't even fight for fellow European country Ukraine for a threat right next to them and you thing maybe UE navies will join. lol US got Japan and S. Korea etc. at best but even them would avoid direct war if they don't get attacked directly because CHina is a big trade partner for them. There is also unhinged North Korea threat to them.

None of us would travel around half the globe to fight american wars. Only the brits are that stupid, as they have shown several times.

For peer to peer Naval warfare, it's a bit different, for offensive operations at sea, let's say between USN and PLAAN, I'd imagine if this was real, USA would be attacker, so say china invaded Taiwan and USA assembled their navy to take out China's navy, it's likely USA would assemble it's carrier strike groups in sets of 2&3. I can imagine other countries refusing to allow USA to use weapons over fear of china attacking them. Regardless there is 7 problems or 7 reasons why USA would not win a naval war with china regardless if it was offensive at sea or defensive at china. Although an offensive battle it's a 70/30 win lose rare to china and in defense, it's around 95/5 win lose. So 1st problem for USA, It's likely China would have prepared for this and with their vast minelayers to mine the waters, this is a big problem for USA as unless they get help from Japan or EU, their naval Minesweeping and Minehunting capabilities are very very limited. 2nd problem, China's patrol capabilities are far greater, china has much more patrol vessels around the Pacific and Indian ocean and the south china sea coupled with their satellite systems and recon aircraft and over 1,000 UAVs and numerous recon aircraft they have massive Reconnaissance capabilities. 3rd problem China's logistics are far superior to USA having much more logistics ships they can use to arm their ships, they have more logistics vessels with far far greater tonnage cargo capacity and oil barrels capacity. 4th problem, China's naval power is far far far greater than USA, in fact in pure numbers for surface Warships china outnumbers USA 7-1. And has around 500,000 tons more in tonnage (other than aircraft Carriers and submarines). 5th problem, china has much better resupply and Repair Capabilities with having more logistics vessels, more auxiliary vessels, more small ports, more shipyards, more dry docks and more shipyard Builders. 6th problem for USA, China's Offensive and defensive capabilities in naval warfare outperform the United States, I'm fact china has better Offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities, gun capabilities and more personnel. USA only wins on air assets. For example USA could launch a massive volley of all their anti ship missles and fighters, and by many estimates USA has around ~10,000 Anti ship missles (this is if they used all VLS Cells on all ships) with just less than ~90 large Naval Guns and ~70 small Naval guns (from all ships including coast guard, marines and army) and offcourse nearly ~800 fighters and ~90 attack helicopters. This sounds impressive and it absolutely is but I don't think it's enough, and I'll explain why China has defensive wise for anti ship missles and fighters around ~2,500 short to long range SAMs (half their VLS cells), nearly ~2,000 short range SAMs, ~200 medium and ~300 long range SAMs along with 349 CIWS systems, nearly ~2,000 Autocannons, nearly ~1,500 machine guns nearly ~5,000 decoy Launchers, over ~1,500 radar systems, nearly, nearly ~500 electronic warfare systems. In fact china has around just over 11,000 defensive systems that can intercept or jam anti ship missles and fighters. That's not including China's own fighters and UCAVs or if it was Defensive and next to china China's near ~5,000 non nuclear ballastic missles fired from numerous mobile TEL Launchers, that have range between 500-5,000km and can be accurately hit with chinas many electronic warfare ships and global navigation systems, one of which can at minimum mission kill a cruiser or fleet carrier and at most two can destroy them and offcourse in a defensive scenario china has over 10,000 cruise missiles that have range of 500-2,000km fired from various mobile systems which are akin to ASMs. "What about our Submarines" very good point USA has over 60 non ICBM Subs with nearly ~300 heavy Torpedoes (large enough to sink a destroyer or mission kill a fleet carrier) and over ~500 light Torpedoes (large enough to sink a corvette or mission kill a Frigate), china has nearly ~700 individual sonar Systems for detecting subs along with a whopping over ~2,000 ASW Rockets and nearly ~1,400 depth Charges along with 108 ASW Helicopters and 29 ASW Planes. (I have the full stats, including exact number of exact type of ships, exact numbers of VLS Cells, ASM Launchers, torpedo tubes, radar systems, guns etc. in my naval capabilities section) 7th and final problem USA has, is their pretty pathetic (relative to china) production capabilities. For context in ten years USA has struggled to retrofit a few old Nimitz, build two new 100,000 ton ships, a handful of 40,0000 ton ships, 5x 8,000-20,000 ton ships, a few 9,000 ton ships, 10x 3,000 ton ship, over 10 1,200 ton ships , 40 300 ton ships, 3x Stealth 13,000 ton ships and a handful of nuclear subs, china in a decade has built 2x 70,000-90,000 ton ships, 4x 40,000 ton ships, 60x 200-12,000 ton ships, 8x stealth 11,000 ton ships, 2 10,000 ton ships, 30x 6-8,000 ton ships, 50x 2-4,000 ton ships, over 100x 400-1,500 ton ships, over 200x 100-300 ton ships, 30x 300-4,000 ton ships, 10x 4,000-10,000 ton subs and over 10x 1,000-3,000 ton subs. China in 10 years has went from a minor naval power to the most powerful navy on earth, this number will shock you, USA builds less than HALF of ONE percent of all ships on earth, china builds nearly HALF of ALL the world's ships. If you want the exact stats, please check my USA and China total Naval Capabilities. And it is total Naval, as in total war, coast guard and merchant Ships are used (source WWII, Vietnam war and Falklands war) but yeah, China's naval power is insane, it's only matched by their insane production capabilities, for context but the most powerful military, it explains why the anti china bandwagon has been in full steam ahead by USA, and nothing shows this more when Joe Biden was dismissing claims about Chinese military strength and was saying "we the United States of America are the most powerful country on earth" in 2023 and everyone in Congress was clapping APART from the joint chiefs and Military generals, who know the truth.

Specifically about how other countries will refuse in fear of Chinese reprisal. Japan, which is the regional allied powerhouse has already said they will go to war if China invades. I doubt SK wouldn't be all in too which is the no.4 in the region. I'd also argue Australia would be in too as they are well outside Chinese strike range and have a vested interest in containing China. But that's speculation. So it would be at minimum Japan + USA with possible Aus + ROK vs China + possibly NK

Yeah what they say and do is two different things, the west promised harsh consequences to Russia if it invaded and they didn't do anything, didn't even try to close the skies This is just baseless speculation but if you want to play it like that then no doubt Russia would get involved as they know without china who supplies much of their stuff post sanctions they'd be fucked and Belarus aswell because they know if Russia isn't there to protect them they're next So you'd probably have Russia + China + Belarus + North Korea. But yeah that's just USA down to a tea, always having to get help then taking the credit, just like Iraq

Actual scitzo posting

Non argument

True, Russia is actually the strongest air, naval and land power of all time ever. The idea that western militaries are strong is just a psyop.

It's amazing the stupidity on display. Russia can't just be an incredibly strong military superpower and 4th most powerful no it's either they're awful or the best. This is the kind of stupidity I have to deal with regularly

Exactly! The Russian performance in Ukraine has shown just how strong of a superpower they are!

Exactly my point

Again tonnage is irrelevant. Proof, Iran has ships that weigh cruiser and destroyer weight yet don't even have frigate level weapons capabilities. *Classifications* Overall Naval Capabilities will be defined by 5 factors 1. Number and variety of warships • So numbers of Warships in Active Service and how many different types of varieties. This is important because you need a good number of ships with different capabilities to engage in modern naval warfare. 2. Logistics. • So how many logistics ships, how much cargo and oil do they carry and how many ports and navy bases they have. This is important because how many logistics ships, a country has, and how stuff much they carry and how many basses are good for resupplying at, is important for supplying your navy and moving troops and equipment. 3. Capabilities of Warships. • So this is the offensive and defensive capabilities, so there's Offensive systems like VLS Cells and Torpedoes. There is defensive systems, so such things as decoy Launchers, ECM systems and radars. Then there is guns, so things like naval guns, Autocannons and machine guns. Finally there is number of air Assets able to be launched at sea, so for example, how many aircraft on carriers or ships or how many amphibious aircraft, so things like fixed wing aircraft, rotorcraft and any confirmed aircraft serving on ships. This is important for obvious reasons as how many weapons systems you have is vital for the function of your navy, modern naval warfare in offensive content, requires a good combination of air assets, anti ship missles, anti sub weapons, mines, torpedoes, large & small naval guns (or MLRS Launchers). For defensive warfare you need a good amount of SAMs, decoy Launchers, EW systems, depth charges, Autocannons, CIWS, machine guns, mines and radar & sonar Systems. 4. Maintenance Capabilities. • So this is defined by how many Shipyards, navy bases, ports and number of auxiliary vessels. This is important because being able to resupply at more ports gives you more options and having more shipyards and auxiliary vessels is important for fixing and maintaining your ships. 5. Production capabilities • so this is defined by a countries percentage of global Shipbuilding, major Shipyards and large Dry Docks. Probably the most important one here, in peer to peer warfare, ships will be lost, being able to replace them and fast us vital, for example IJN was more powerful than USN at start of WWII in some areas yet by end thanks to the USA domination of shipbuilding (which now belongs to china, Japan and South Korea) they were able to quickly assemble a large fleet building over 100 escort Carriers in few years Your numbers are WAY off China's naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tDP3F0Gng3tVcu5Xt1Zkdwwj17u2jzU8ELpcGGjvVlg/edit?usp=drivesdk US naval capabilities https://docs.google.com/document/d/1prbzvKQ1KDhC0YCJ_P1_5hNIWoOAE4HkFCPx-wHM8jM/edit?usp=drivesdk Source's, criteria and methodology https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-i4j37e8KT_7jeeQTxB7ZUCrd7JrlGIXrQD8C_L0gk/edit?usp=drivesdk

After checking the numbers, a lot of the Chinese ships are not operational including Type 003 and the 4th Type 075. The Chinese are building a lot of ships but with such a rapid expansion the problem is always the same : level of training of the new crews. For a destroyer or frigate it take at least one year after commissioning. The equipment is important but it is the crews that make the difference.

This is just false, again the 4th type 075 was launched nearly a year ago, it's got it's full weapons systems and is fitted out and is in trials just like the Type 003. >For a destroyer or frigate it take at least one year after commissioning. The equipment is important but it is the crews that make the difference. No it doesn't

Okay, first of, props to you for providing a source. Not many people do that. Second, you state that tonnage is irrelevant, but then state that capabilities of warships are important. The higher the tonnage, the more capable the vessel because more offensive and defensive systems can be put on (I want to know which iranian ship you are talking about though, I can't seem to find it). Also, the final amount of ships in those two docs seem a bit weird to me.

>Second, you state that tonnage is irrelevant, but then state that capabilities of warships are important. The higher the tonnage, the more capable the vessel because more offensive and defensive systems can be put on (I want to know which iranian ship you are talking about though, I can't seem to find it). Iranian ship Khalije Fars and Shahid Roudaki. That's why capabilities matter, people who just say tonnage matters usually just say it because USA has higher tonnage. >Also, the final amount of ships in those two docs seem a bit weird to me. Because it includes all naval vessels from army, navy, marines, air force, miltias and any government organisations like coast guard. It's the full naval capabilities of each country

>Iranian ship Khalije Fars and Shahid Roudaki. That's why capabilities matter, people who just say tonnage matters usually just say it because USA has higher tonnage. Khalije Fars is a destroyer project whose capabilities we don't know yet. And if you do, then please provide a source. Shahid Roudaki is more a helicopter carrier than a cruiser/destroyer. And before you say that carriers don't have antiship missiles, Kuznetsov has and everybody calls it a carrier. >It's the full naval capabilities of each country That includes nonexisting ships such as the Type75III corvette apparently. They just converted a landing ship for testing. Probably just figured it out. It includes duplicates. If the mentioned ship is counted seperatly, then it should not be included in the Type75III landing ship list.

Not all carriers are created equal. The largest Chinese carrier has 35 aircraft. The smallest US carrier has 75. Most carry 90.

This is false. For one it's just an observation, carriers are irrelevant to the larger picture. China's largest carrier the Type 003 carries 50-70 aircraft based on size

But the 003 is still in sea trials.

And ? It's been launched and fitted with all it's primary weapons systems, it's just under trials. It's fully capable now

Operational capability isn’t what you seem to think it is.

It's exactly what I think it is, it's a ship that has had all it's primary systems fitted and is combat ready and is ready to trials. If this was a major war it would be sent into combat, just like they did in WWII

Except it's not, and that's not how the Chinese do things. It's undergoing sea trials and that's it, it's not fully kitted with subsystems yet they historically do the sea trial first unlike other nations. It still needs to be fitted for internal subsystems after the sea trial.

That makes no sense, if they don't have their systems installed yet (fitted out) why would they be undergoing sea trials ? Sea trials are to test the actual ship in training and mock set ups, it's just making sure that the ship is fine. Saying they're going to do the trials before fitting out is like saying you're going to test a car that's not got wheels or steering wheel and just a body and engine

Because that's how they do? Idk ask the PRC why they do things the way they do them. All I know is that's how they have done sea trials historically and likely what they are doing now. Better analogy might be testing the car before installing the entertainment system, speakers, etc

The Type 003 won't be combat ready before 2026 or 2027 even if commissioned in 2025. They'll need 15 to 18 months of use after commissioning to have an air wing really ready to operate operationally

Where is the evidence for this ? China's last carrier the Type 002 was fully commissioned less than a year after sea trials. China builds hundreds of fighters every year, they could build ~50-70 J-15B and J-35s in that timeframe easily, J-15B prototypes have already been spotted (CATOBAR/EMALS/ and it could still carry STOL Aircraft with hooks, drones and rotorcraft.

So if you kit me out in special operations gear and put a navy seals badge on me, you think I’d be an operationally capable special forces member?

No if you spent months or a year training to be a navy seal then went on a mock mission you'd be capable at that stage

It doesn't have a stealth fighter. That's a pretty major weapon system to lack. Especially when your opponent does have them.

It will have the J-35 but again that's pretty irrelevant, especially at sea where it's much more open and aircraft are more vulnerable

Since when was air superiority irrelevant? No carrier-born stealth aircraft basically means that Chinese aircraft can't leave the AA domes of their own ships.

You've just confirmed you don't really know what you're talking about. Firstly, air superiority or supremacy is maintained by two things, aircraft or air defence systems china might not have many fixed wing fighters but they have thousands of SAMs to secure the air space around them Secondly, you realize that F-35s aren't invisible? Especially with China's many EW Ships that can boost their radar capabilities in various bands including ones like L band and VHF which F-35 is vulnerable to.

No, you've just confirmed you don't really know what you're talking about. You can boost your radar all you want but you aren't going to boost it enough to stop F35s from getting within anti-ship missile range. SAMs are irrelevant. They are land based and will depend on the ship's radar to track aircraft anyway. The only way to stop F35s from constantly shooting LRASMs at your ships will be other stealth aircraft.

Don’t compare Chinese drone carriers with US carriers

Love the cherry picking

What do you mean? There were no launches of J35 from carriers and you are already speaking about superiority

You realize the J-35 is a carrier based variant of the J-31

Yes but there were no launches from a carrier with the J-35

It was spotted on the Type 003 and it's built specifically to be launched from a carrier so it's safe to assume it has been. It's irrelevant regardless because the J-35 is a carrier capable aircraft as it has hook, reinforced wheels and airframe

That does not mean that it will actually work…. The US also had issues with launching new aircraft types from carriers even after decades of experience. China does not have that experience yet….

How would it not work? China has nearly two decades of experience.

Yes but not with catapult systems.

You are actually a simpleton aren’t you? You tried to argue that the FREMM could cover the Horizon class for air defence coverage and then when proven why they are not equal (better radars and VLS numbers which you tried to argue for quad packed Crotale) then you act like a TG doesn’t necessarily need air defence specialists anyway so it’s all fine Despite that not being your actual original argument. This constant moving of goal posts makes it impossible to talk with you. Honestly you have shown you don’t have a clue what you are talking on Multiple occasions and that you lack basic comprehension to hold a conversation let alone actually speak with any authority. This is why i am terminating interactions with you. Not because you don’t know what you are talking about but because you are either being obtuse or lack basic intelligence to follow a conversation. Good luck to you, I encourage you to be less condescending and more receptive.

Bro stfu you got exposed multiple times for your lack of sources. You haven't proved any of your nonsense ONCE, every time you were asked to prove your point you shut up. You can't prove why EU doesn't have the experience to do a permanent deployment. You can't even prove why multi role ships aren't as capable. You can't prove anything, which is why you got triggered and just throw insults because you know you got owned.