Naval firepower rated: China comes 4th

I've only counted anti-ship missiles because they are comparatively easier to add up than if i broadened it to include every conceivable way of attacking a ship. I have counted aircraft mounted missiles (I've been generous re the USN by accounting 44 Hornets each with two Harpoons for each of the ten air wings PLUS one Penguin per SH-70 per for all the relevant DDG/CG/FFG etc.)

On the Russian side, the single biggest chunk of firepower comes from the estimated 165 anti-ship assigned Tu-22Ms still thought to be in service, each credited with a single conventionally armed AS-16 (Kh-15A). As you no doubt know the AS-16 "Kickback" is about the same age as the Harpoon (1960s tech), but has a 300km range and dives in at Mach 5 (compared to a sea skimming Mach 0.85 for the Harpoon). Now technically each Tu-22M could carry three missiles but I've see one missile per aircraft as more credible. The Tu-22M has a range of about 7000km compared to the F-18C Hornet's (still the most numerous Harpoon platform in the USN) 3,300km FERRY range.

planeman said:

I've only counted anti-ship missiles because they are comparatively easier to add up than if i broadened it to include every conceivable way of attacking a ship. I have counted aircraft mounted missiles (I've been generous re the USN by accounting 44 Hornets each with two Harpoons for each of the ten air wings PLUS one Penguin per SH-70 per for all the relevant DDG/CG/FFG etc.)

Click to expand...

Oh. OK. But then perhaps the title of the thread should be changed to "Numbers of anti-ship missiles:rated". Then put a disclaimer saying you are including serviceable and unserviceable units. Deployable or not. And then, yes, this graph would be accurate. But only measuring one aspect of ASuW is a poor way to measure overall "real" naval firepower. "Real" naval firepower includes alot of force multipliers you're missing here, that would push the USA far to the top and push Japan, and the UK even higher also. Anti-ship missiles are only one small aspect and can also be neutralized by various means.

planeman said:

On the Russian side, the single biggest chunk of firepower comes from the estimated 165 anti-ship assigned Tu-22Ms still thought to be in service, each credited with a single conventionally armed AS-16 (Kh-15A). As you no doubt know the AS-16 "Kickback" is about the same age as the Harpoon (1960s tech), but has a 300km range and dives in at Mach 5 (compared to a sea skimming Mach 0.85 for the Harpoon). Now technically each Tu-22M could carry three missiles but I've see one missile per aircraft as more credible. The Tu-22M has a range of about 7000km compared to the F-18C Hornet's (still the most numerous Harpoon platform in the USN) 3,300km FERRY range.

Click to expand...

OK. I see where you're going. TU-22's are powerful, but AFAIK not many remain in service. I think 165 may be generous, but I don't know myself the total. And they're land based meaning certain vulnerabilities exists. If you factor in TU-22's, you have to factor in B-52's and B-2's in assymetric ASuW roles. They are included in USN's Seapower vision you know. Also these Tu-22's are going to have some difficulties amassing and ranging within 300 Km. USN aircraft traverse further than that in CVBG Ops. How successful these TU-22's would really be remains to be seen.

planeman said:

I'm pretty much done with cataloging the world's main navies, adding up their anti-ship missiles and basically calculating who has the most firepower.

Click to expand...

The following is just my opinion, but I believe it to be extremely relevent.

Any calculation of naval strike power or capability that does not include and factor in the carrier battle groups of the respective countries that possess them, the numbers of aircraft, their range, the ordinance they are capable of carrying, does not nearly accurately portray the relative naval strike power of that country. I would suggest you factor that in, along with the relative submarine capability of each country and you will see the results of your research come out markedly different in several areas.

As I say, that's just my opinion.

Jeff sez..

The following is just my opinion, but I believe it to be extremely relevent.

Any calculation of naval strike power or capability that does not include and factor in the carrier battle groups of the respective countries that possess them, the numbers of aircraft, their range, the ordinance they are capable of carrying, does not nearly accurately poprtray the relative naval strike power of that country. I would suggest you factor that in, along with the relative submarine capability of each country and you will see the results of your research come out markedly different in several areas.

As I say, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

He is correct.

I realize this is about missiles but one weapon I did not see mentioned in this thread is the JDAM..The JDAM when strapped on a 2000lb(907kg) bomb make a devestating weapon. They just don't miss. Period.

Intresting thread but you cannot dissmiss any weapons the USN may use in this seceniro. Another one is ECM emitted by Arliegh Burke class DDG's and E/A-8B's. There effect on electronic components is devestating. To make it simple..your stuff just won't work like it is susposed to...

As for the Russian missiles..impressive... but how many ships could the Russians put to sea at once with fully trained crews and fully functioning equipment? ....

Jeff Head said:

The following is just my opinion, but I believe it to be extremely relevent.

Any calculation of naval strike power or capability that does not include and factor in the carrier battle groups of the respective countries that possess them, the numbers of aircraft, their range, the ordinance they are capable of carrying, does not nearly accurately poprtray the relative naval strike power of that country. I would suggest you factor that in, along with the relative submarine capability of each country and you will see the results of your research come out markedly different in several areas.

As I say, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Exactly. No slam on Planeman, but the title of the thread is obviously innacurate. That's why I think the title of the thread should reflect only missiles with the disclaimers of serviceability included. There is so much to ASuW and overall naval firepower. And the USN is completely dominant in that area. The Russians couldn't deliver even half the firepower of current USN ASuW capability. It's all in the numbers of ships and serviceability of the individual units. Plus the USN has an ASuW engagement envelope that is at a minimum of 3 times larger than it's next closest competitor......Russia.

bd popeye said:

I realize this is about missiles but one weapon I did not see mentioned in this thread is the JDAM..The JDAM when strapped on a 2000lb(907kg) bomb make a devestating weapon. They just don't miss. Period.

Intresting thread but you cannot dissmiss any weapons the USN may use in this seceniro. Another one is ECM emitted by Arliegh Burke class DDG's and E/A-8B's. There effect on electronic components is devestating. To make it simple..your stuff just won't work like it is susposed to...

Click to expand...

Agree 100% popeye. I said what I said because the thread purports to rate Naval Firepower...and the US naval firepower, when taken as an aggregate including surface ship delivered ASMs, aircraft (strike at sea) delivered ASMs, submarines delivered anti-surface capability, and all of it augmented by the space based assets and ECM, AEW, and other assetts is simply incomparable as a whole in the current environment.

If the firepower calculation and comparison does not include all of this, it is not a true measure of overall naval firepower.

Sea Dog said:

Exactly. TThere is so much to ASuW and overall naval firepower. And the USN is completely dominant in that area.

Click to expand...

Agreed completely. Any comparison of true naval firepower must take all of this into consideration...otherwise it is not a true comparison of overall naval firepower...just a comparison of one segment of it.

Agree with Jeff Head, and if we consider it overall, I don't think the Chinese Navy has so strong power as the table shows , and the Russia should also give way to the US...

Jjjeeeeessssssssshhhhhhhh

The tizz Americans get into when they don't come out on top!

In the original post I say it's not perfect and that on its own its out of context and I get two pages of how wonderful the USN is and how we should include GPS guided munitions because they are great for hitting moving targets like ships:coffee:

If you guys are so determined to make the calculation that much more complicated, maybe you want to ponder the impact of the USN's lack of littorial combat craft relative to many of the lower ranked (in that calc) countries. Would the CBGs be as effective as the Russians if operating in the Baltic, with huge nuclear subs rather than SSKs, without any FACs at all to mention when Russia has two Bora class surface effect ships with eight SS-N-22s apeice - the USN would be asking the Norsemen for help. Imagine the USN fighting in the gulf without friendly land based air support.

It's all swings and roundabouts. What this exercise really highlights is that the USN places a greater emphasis on general power projection and that anti-ship missile capabilities have generally suffered as a result - and that it has fewer and less capable AShMs in service than we at first might expect.

planeman said:

Blimey, I've not counted China's FACs at all??!!!???? my err

Click to expand...

You also forgot to count China's 8 Kilos with Clubs, all delivered already by the way, at least 12 Songs with sub launched YJ-82 and 2 Yuan class subs also with sub launched YJ-82. The last Hans and the Xia class is capable of launching YJ-81s under water.

Talking of Russian anti-ship assets, I counted the Su-33s as carrying 2 Kh-17As not Moskit.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Su-33s are purely air to air assets only.

Same for the 8 Su-32s, except I gave them a 'normal' load of 4 missiles.

Click to expand...

Su-32s are not operational.

I do need to add that the Russians at one point, were considering tipping their AshMs with nukes as an option. This is a factor for their huge sizes.