2020: JMSDF & PLAN Surface Combatant strength

Bltizo said:

Its primary purpose is as an aviation carrier, and should thus be compared with other similar vessels of the PLAN.


My bottom line, is, for the purposes of Jeff's comparison of VLS capable destroyers and frigates, Hyuga shouldn't be included

Click to expand...

The 22DDH and its sister will be just as you say, and they definitely will have a possibility for naval air arms in the classic sense. No one will argue that the Kuznetsov and particularly the Liaoning are not designed to carry a significant naval air arm with a fixed wing capaility designed in from the onset.

The Hyuga and the Ise are both designed to be very large, anti-submarine destroyers. They are dedicated to that task and have the arms consistant with it. They will not have, and have not been designed to have a naval air arm with the purpose of attacking other surface combatants or ground targets.

So, I have essentially treated the Hyuga like I would the Haruna or Shirane classes which the Hyuga class are replacing. Which is to say they are all large destroyers, with a very expanded rotary aviation capability for the purpose of hunting subs, like any dedicated ASW DDG is. In doing so, they also act as a task force leader in the hunter killer role to protect capitol assets and sea lanes from submarines, and to protect themselves and other members of their group from hostile air threats. In fact, the original intent and main purpose of the JMSDF in the cold war with respect to any major outbreak of hostilities was to provide a huge capability in that reagrd for US carrier groups.

Now, the 22DDHis a different horse IMHO. They have decks designed to handle jet blast, they have cleared the CIWS away from the landing and take off areas of the deck, and have added a side elevator with a much larger hanger. Clearly, IMHO, they are meant to be able to take on a fixed wing component.

But the Hyuga cannot...and will not. She is a dedicated ASW helo carrying destroyer...with a flat deck. Even though she carriers "aircraft," they have a specific purpose consistant with ASW DDGs, and in that regard she can never, and will never be able to be like the Liaoning and the Liaoning's basic function.

Anyhiow, that's my reasoning. Certainly others can and will disagree.

the japanese defense budget for 2013 after the raise by Abe is 4.77 trillion yen, that is $ 51 billion at the current exchange rate, less than half of that of china's. by the year of 2020, it could be less than one tenth, there's no race.

china could start a arm race to run down america, just like america did it to the soviet union.

LesAdieux said:

china could start a arm race to run down america, just like america did it to the soviet union.

Click to expand...

Actually...not.

The arms race that Reagan instituted in the 1980s that finally got the job done was not the tank vs tank, aircraft vs. aircraft variety that had already been going on for 30 years. It was high tech and strategic initiatives. Star Wars, for all the fun that was made of it, was producing results, and the Russian intelligence knew it.

So, in addition to the normal Russian, "my ten thousand inferior tanks vs your four thousand better tanks" race, the Russians were now going to have to come up with something equally cutting edge to defeat what American labs were 1st discovering and experimenting with, and then later American manufacturers were protoyping...and they bankrupted themselves trying to do that.

Now, 25-30 years later, Star Wars technology has come of age. Ballistic Missile Defense is not only possible, it is deployed. Space based systems are equally pssible...just not deployed. The Lasers and Rail Guns from Star Wars will be deployed in the US fleet soon, and particle beam efforts are ongoing and also producing fruit.

There was a tremendous technological and qualitative edge that the US gained and then held and used to do what they did in applying that edge to those strategic areas in the interest of national defense.

The Chinese do not enjoy a tremendous technological edge, or qualitative edge that they can apply in a similar fashion against the United States. In fact, many, if not most, of their systems remain 2-3 generation behind the US to this day. But they are closing that gap.

But certainly not to the extent that they can start an arms race with the hopes of bankrupting America because America would have to "keep up." Right now, it is the PRC spending trillions still trying to "catch up."

I do not see the PRC "getting ahead," of the US to the exytent that the US was ahead of Russia in in my life time, and probably not that of my children, if at all.

Does this mean the PRC will not get strong enough to challenge the US in that time frame? No, far from it. I expect they almost certainly will. In the next 10-15 years the PLAN and PLAAF will be strong enough to exert challenges to the US in the Western Pacific...and short of the two sides resolving their ideological differneces, it is going to happen. Hopefully not to the point of open conflict, but more like the cold war.

I am just saying that they will not get so far ahead that they can do to the US what the US did to Russia in the forseeable future. If At this stage (and for the next decade or more), if America suffered a tremendous economic crash...it is likely the entire world would go with it. Everyone knows this and wants to avoid it if they can.

LesAdieux said:

china could start a arm race to run down america, just like america did it to the soviet union.

Click to expand...

eh excuse me?? USN operates more than around 3 times the number of frontline aircraft that all the armed forces of China can deploy combined, and note i mentioned only the United States Navy! you work out the rest

11 supercarriers and 9 flat top amphibious assault ships, the once mighty Soviet War machine was a resource rich nation and throughout its history it managed 2 LHDs (Moskava Class), 4 light carriers (Kiev Class), 2 medium sized carriers (Admiral Kuznetsov class) and had 1 supercarrier (Ulyanovsk class) when it collapsed, so i count roughly 8 flat tops and 1 which was never finished, that during its 40 year history

when Gerald R. Ford is launched this summer it will have been the 78th carrier to be launched since 1922, so in 91 years thats 78 carrier launches and counting, and thats just carriers not all flat tops, you must be kidding if you think you will out produce American shipyards, lets be sensible shall we

asif iqbal said:

...when Gerald R. Ford is launched this summer it will have been the 78th carrier to be launched since 1922, so in 91 years thats 78 carrier launches and counting, and thats just carriers not all flat tops, you must be kidding if you think you will out produce American shipyards, lets be sensible shall we

Click to expand...

Actually, the seventy-eight built refer only to the larger, fleet carriers...what today are the US Super Carriers.

But during World War II the US built many CVE's, or Escort Carriers, ranging in tonnage from 9,500 tons to 14,000 tons. Five were built and operted in the Atlantic just before and and after Pearl Harbor. They were so successful in defending convoys from submarines, and then later in covering the initial landings in North Africa, that in June 1941, the US embarked on a major Escort Carrier building program in addition to the Fleet Carriers. So, as a result, between June 1941 and April 1945, the US built and launched seventy eight more of these type carriers...83 of them in all. And they performed admirably in combat. This was, and remains a remarkable feat in industrial, war-time production, while at the same time US ship yards were producing hunderds of liberty convoy ships, hundreds of destroyers, scores of cruisers, dozens of battleships and the larger carriers, and literally thousands and thousands of aircraft of all types. All in that four year period.

So, in terms of numbers of aircraft carirers, this means in total, the US has acutally built launched, and operated 161 aircraft carriers since the Langely was lauinched in the 1920s.

Ah, but we digress (and this is not directed at you, Asif). This thread is about the relative strengths and numbers of combatants and future of the JMSDF and the PLAN, not the PLAN and the US Navy. And, for those posters wanting to post in relation to that...no tinkling contests, "my country is better than your country", politics, nation bashing, etc. allowed.

Just a factual, technical discussion of the expectations for the PLAN and JMSDF in terms of their relative growth and technical development. If we stick to that, we can have a really interesting discussion and avoid the thread being closed because people want to somehow think or interject that one nation or people is somehow better than the other instead of just discussing their naval vessels, technology, and doctrine.

asif iqbal said:

eh excuse me?? USN operates more than around 3 times the number of frontline aircraft that all the armed forces of China can deploy combined, and note i mentioned only the United States Navy! you work out the rest

11 supercarriers and 9 flat top amphibious assault ships, the once mighty Soviet War machine was a resource rich nation and throughout its history it managed 2 LHDs (Moskava Class), 4 light carriers (Kiev Class), 2 medium sized carriers (Admiral Kuznetsov class) and had 1 supercarrier (Ulyanovsk class) when it collapsed, so i count roughly 8 flat tops and 1 which was never finished, that during its 40 year history

when Gerald R. Ford is launched this summer it will have been the 78th carrier to be launched since 1922, so in 91 years thats 78 carrier launches and counting, and thats just carriers not all flat tops, you must be kidding if you think you will out produce American shipyards, lets be sensible shall we

Click to expand...

didn't know you have so much respect for the USN!

I have slightly different numbers. in 2012, america spent total $140 billion on weapon procurement, assume 20 years life-span on average for all weapons, then china using its FX reserve alone could buy up all america's weapon-stock at brand new price till the very last piece!

china is the largest manufacturing nation in the world, it produces more than anyone else. as for ship building, in the year 2012, 40% of the new ships in the world were built by china.

back to the topic. I disagree with Jeff's VLS by VLS approach, because as I put it in the other thread, I think naval ships are tier III weapons, the first two are missiles and air forces.

before the second world war, people were fascinated by the battleships, especially their big guns, people thought those were decisive weapons.

to value each weapon in a conflict scenario analysis, you must know first if you can use the weapon. for instance, japan has a big fleet of the P-3C, which are potent ASW, but to send the propeller driven P-3C for patrol, you must control the air.

LesAdieux said:

didn't know you have so much respect for the USN!

I have slightly different numbers. in 2012, america spent total $140 billion on weapon procurement, assume 20 years life-span on average for all weapons, then china using its FX reserve alone could buy up all america's weapon-stock at brand new price till the very last piece!

china is the largest manufacturing nation in the world, it produces more than anyone else. as for ship building, in the year 2012, 40% of the new ships in the world were built by china.

Click to expand...

there is quite bit difference when producing commericial shipping ship vs high grade military ships with complex technology.

LesAdieux said:

the japanese defense budget for 2013 after the raise by Abe is 4.77 trillion yen, that is $ 51 billion at the current exchange rate, less than half of that of china's. by the year of 2020, it could be less than one tenth, there's no race.

china could start a arm race to run down america, just like america did it to the soviet union.

Click to expand...

Jeff's right, at this point in time no one is going to run anyone down.. at worst both will be run down together.. this is not exactly a zero sum game. the US while currently facing financial issues is still the No. 1 economy in the world by far and while a lot of manufacturing has gone overseas, I believe that if something truly serious happens I can see the country rally together and 'revert' into a giant well oil production machine not unlike WWII.

Besides I wonder why this is brought up in the first place? I don;t think it is ever China's intention to try and outcompete the US. At best they want to be strong enough in the Pacific to 'hold their own'. Last I check the modern china is not exactly in the invasion business nor are they planning on world domination.

LesAdieux said:

I disagree with Jeff's VLS by VLS approach, because as I put it in the other thread, I think naval ships are tier III weapons, the first two are missiles and air forces.

Click to expand...

By missiles, I presume you mean ICBMs or some such? Because a VLS, of course, houses missiles...some of them very long range cruise missiles.

Anyhow, I have no problem with your disagreement. It is just out of context. This thread is specifically about the PLAN and JMSDF, and their relative strengths up to 2020...which are naval forces, which means ships and missiles, and potentially naval aviation.

The strategic teir weapons are not a part of the discussion...on the naval side we are not including the SSBNs by definition. Such weapons would not be used to solve a regional conflict over a few islands in the China Sea.

LesAdieux said:

china could start a arm race to run down america, just like america did it to the soviet union.

Click to expand...

No chance! China will probably not exceed about 2% GDP for defense for a long, long time. They've made massive advances and pulled about 300 million of her citizens out of poverty, but that still leaves about a billion poor people.