An ASW aircraft based in the KJ-600 that could be launched off carriers is probably the closest we'll get for a while. Would love for China to start putting turbojets on carrier aircraft like AEWC, but it would still be an excellent capability the U.S. navy has lost since the 2000s.
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
An ASW aircraft based in the KJ-600 that could be launched off carriers is probably the closest we'll get for a while. Would love for China to start putting turbojets on carrier aircraft like AEWC, but it would still be an excellent capability the U.S. navy has lost since the 2000s.
If the KJ-600 ASW varient turns out to be real, that will be more than good enough and a huge capability boost. Crazy to think we could live in a world where China has a dedicated ASW carrier launched aircraft while the US doesn’t.
Lethe
Captain
Somewhat related to material I put forward earlier re: PLAN experience with underway replenishment. J.G. Muller's book China as a Maritime Power 1945-1983 contains a poor-quality rendition of a photo of underway replenishment occurring between Fuqing AOR and a Luda destroyer with caption dated 1980 and attributed to Australian Department of Defence.
Attempting to locate a better-quality rendition of this photo, I have instead found a poor-quality rendition of a second photo from what seems likely to be the same photographic series, in the (Australian Naval Institute). This photo is attributed to the Royal Australian Air Force (which implies that it was most likely taken from a P-3 Orion) and more precisely dated May 1980, i.e. during the events described in previous linked post.
Undoubtedly the original photos, or at least better-quality facsimiles thereof, can be found in some dusty Canberra archive. But without going to any real effort: are there any earlier (bearing in mind that they can't possibly be much earlier) and/or better-quality photos around of PLAN underway replenishment from this early period?
P.S. I also found by R.G. Smith, featured on March 1986 issue of Proceedings and subsequently to Admiral Liu Huaqing by USN CNO Admiral James Watkins, presumably when he visited China shortly thereafter.
Attempting to locate a better-quality rendition of this photo, I have instead found a poor-quality rendition of a second photo from what seems likely to be the same photographic series, in the (Australian Naval Institute). This photo is attributed to the Royal Australian Air Force (which implies that it was most likely taken from a P-3 Orion) and more precisely dated May 1980, i.e. during the events described in previous linked post.
Undoubtedly the original photos, or at least better-quality facsimiles thereof, can be found in some dusty Canberra archive. But without going to any real effort: are there any earlier (bearing in mind that they can't possibly be much earlier) and/or better-quality photos around of PLAN underway replenishment from this early period?
P.S. I also found by R.G. Smith, featured on March 1986 issue of Proceedings and subsequently to Admiral Liu Huaqing by USN CNO Admiral James Watkins, presumably when he visited China shortly thereafter.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Numbers have merged as of February 2026 at 110 major surface combatants each:
USN:
74 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
7 Ticonderoga-class cruisers
2 Zumwalt-class destroyers
17 Independence-class littoral combat ships
10 Freedom-class littoral combat ships
PLAN
10 055 destroyers
35 052D/DL destroyers
6 052C destroyers
2 051C destroyers
2 052B destroyers
4 Sovremenny destroyers
1 051B destroyer
2 052 destroyers
2 054B frigates
44 054A frigates
2 054 frigates
Last edited:
Yes, but PLAN really only have 51 destroyers in reality while the USN has 74 Burke and 7 Ticonderoga and 2 Zumwalt, all AEGIS equipped vessels for a total of 83 destroyer equivalents. The gap is still quite huge as of right now, counting the number of hulls alone isn't really conclusive on anything without actually comparing capability and the quality of each individual hull.
It's really 83 modern US destroyers/cruisers vs 45 Chinese modern destroyers/cruisers.
Once you factor in subsurface and aircraft carriers, the balance is far more in USN favour when it comes to nominal size. Supply chain logistics in the western pacific favour China to balance all that out a bit and of course support from land based platforms giving a greater sense of parity but China has to build up at this pace for at least another 10 years to equal USN's overall firepower. Of course, then it would have even greater land based support and logistics advantage in the western pacific. The equal naval power is just OP for China. US can't step foot with 100% of its built force. Usually about half are in maintenance. That of course goes for China too.
On platform themselves, 055s are superior to Ticos and flight 3 Burkes. Weapons too. 055 and 052D VLS are larger cells. More modern radars on the Chinese ships too. Far more modern. US tech falling into decline, along with the rest of the US. Still can't bet on all that. Keep on adding oil.
Once you factor in subsurface and aircraft carriers, the balance is far more in USN favour when it comes to nominal size. Supply chain logistics in the western pacific favour China to balance all that out a bit and of course support from land based platforms giving a greater sense of parity but China has to build up at this pace for at least another 10 years to equal USN's overall firepower. Of course, then it would have even greater land based support and logistics advantage in the western pacific. The equal naval power is just OP for China. US can't step foot with 100% of its built force. Usually about half are in maintenance. That of course goes for China too.
On platform themselves, 055s are superior to Ticos and flight 3 Burkes. Weapons too. 055 and 052D VLS are larger cells. More modern radars on the Chinese ships too. Far more modern. US tech falling into decline, along with the rest of the US. Still can't bet on all that. Keep on adding oil.
I'm not sure why you're eliminating the 6 052Cs. They have 51 modern destroyers. It is obviously not capability wise on the same level as an 052D, but it's still a "modern", area-defense destroyer, and their MLU's (at least for the first two ships) aren't that far off. Otherwise, then one should eliminate all 21 Flight I Burke's (and even the 7 Flight II's if we want to push it; all were built even before the first two 052Cs were commissioned) if the 052C is not classified as "modern" by whatever metric you may be using.
Also, all 7 Ticonderoga-classes still in service should be fully decommissioned before 2030. US may still have an overall total DDG/CG advantage in terms of hull counts but it isn't going to have that for much longer, on top of China having the advantage of all of that being in their region. They've built over 90% of that "modern" DDG fleet in just the last 12 years, even with multiple hiatuses and building a multitude of other ships.
Last edited: