Naval firepower rated: China comes 4th

Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Sea Dog said:
Have you ever served on a USN ship? I have. I served in two different fleets as well. And I never seen a "we can handle it" attitude as you describe. :confused: Actually the USN moves and deploys it's assets based on threat assessments. I've never seen the arrogance that you think it works with.

On your second paragraph, I totally agree. The USN is mostly concerned about keeping sea lanes safe for commerce and travel, and also deterring aggression. Not about just running around the ocean threatening everyone. They are not offensive oriented. But nor are they defensive oriented. They are multi-mission capable that emphasizes sea control and force protection.....as you say. That's a pretty good mix of both offensive and defensive postures. For example, while the Arleigh Burke packs a considerable offensive punch, it is there for one reason.....AAW force protection of carrier assets. But can go offensive at anytime. And does it pretty much better than anything else. The Russian and PLAN units do focus more on offensive aspects as a primacy in their own naval views. That's good in some respects, however, their emphasis eliminates other areas that USN can exploit. That's a given.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the attitude of most USN commanders is, as I'm not in the military, but what I was saying was more directed towards you and Popeye (no offence intended, just to back up my argument), as well as in a more general sense towards politicians and commanders, to say "don't think you're invincible, that is never true".

Finally getting back on the topic of firepower, sort of, having a more offensive posture is something that "underdog" navies do to try to close the gap between them and more developed navies. The Soviets, hopelessly out classed by the American navy, focused on offensive capability in order to present a reliable deterant to the US and to prevent the US from getting control of the areas that the Soviet Navy deemed it need to keep control of, like the Baltic, Artic, Sea of Oshtosk and the White Sea/off northern Norway. The PLAN has a similar strategy. It relies on offensive capability to make the US think twice before coming to Taiwan's aid and to give it a fighting chance in its homewaters.

I feel like putting a banana in my post.

:nana:​
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Seadog, you surprise me. By looking at the way you and other u.s sailors post about the u.s navy, it is clear that you DO feel it is invincible. clarly, this kind of feeling must have been instilled in you guys sometime in service. I dont blame anyone. High moral and confidence is a step towards better performance in combat, and a "we can do it attitude" is good. Just make sure there is no overconfidence.

back on topic:
In the past, China clearly valued anti-ship ability over everything else, hence we have destroyers with 16 missles. but the newest of the new are only sporting 8, although the 8 are arguable more advanced. The fact that Chinese designers only put 8 yj-83s on the 51c to make room for SAMs shows a step towards a more balanced fleet. The anti-ship ability forfeited is compensated by submarines and FACs.
 
swimmerXC

swimmerXC

Unregistered
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Finn McCool said:
"don't think you're invincible, that is never true".
Click to expand...

Look at history when Philip II sent the Spanish Armada against England in 1588, everyone thought that the Armada would destory the English Fleet and eventaully conquer England failed... the Spanish at the time was consider and viewed as what we view the American Military now...
 
S

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
MIGleader said:
Seadog, you surprise me. By looking at the way you and other u.s sailors post about the u.s navy, it is clear that you DO feel it is invincible. clarly, this kind of feeling must have been instilled in you guys sometime in service. I dont blame anyone. High moral and confidence is a step towards better performance in combat, and a "we can do it attitude" is good. Just make sure there is no overconfidence.
Click to expand...

LOL. Not at all. I'm just amazed at the overconfidence on the other side of the equation. We're talking in terms of overall naval firepower in this thread. And measuring in those terms, USN is just absolutely the most powerful. :D There is no talk of invincibility here at all. But this thread also talks of ASM's which directly deal with the ASuW spectrum. USN does have an ASuW engagement envelope greater than 3 times it's next closest of Russia. USN just isn't concerned about this type of ship-to-ship warfare for a very good reason. You mistake fact for "overconfidence". BTW, nobody here has said USN ships are invincible. But it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge they do indeed greatly have the most firepower.

swimmerXC said:
Look at history when Philip II sent the Spanish Armada against England in 1588, everyone thought that the Armada would destory the English Fleet and eventaully conquer England failed... the Spanish at the time was consider and viewed as what we view the American Military now...
Click to expand...

If it makes you guys feel better, yeah. Truer words were never spoken.:)

BTW, this example is a specific fleet study given to US naval officers. ;)
 
Last edited:
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
You are also forgetting that the Standard Missile has an anti-surface capability. Blast fragmentation warhead coming at you at Mach 4 is very deadly. It can cause a definate mission kill on most large ships and cause catastrophic fires. Those SS-N-22 are not very well protected. A blast fragmentation warhed piercing through Quad laucher will expload the fuel and warhead of that missile, tearing apart the ship.
Click to expand...

Same can be said of S-300s and HQ-9s, or any SAM with Home On JAM capability, which is about most medium to large SAMs out there. If you want to expand the concept of firepower needlessly, why not just include every aircraft out there that can carry an ARM, since they can be used to target ship radars and decapitate them.
 
Indianfighter

Indianfighter

Junior Member
I am certain that India's ranking shall improve by 2009, as the Brahmos cruise missile is to be inducted in some more warships such as the recently launched destroyers INS Kolkata, the Admiral Gorshkov Aircraft Carrier and few other destroyers.

India is also leasing Russian nuclear powered submarine(s), besides development work being under progress in the indigenous ATV. The Sagarika SLBM is also expected to be completed by that period.

Any comments/criticisms may be done constructively as I am not very knowledgeble about Navy and to some extent Army. My field of interest lies in Air Force and Space technologies.
 
swimmerXC

swimmerXC

Unregistered
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Seriously if you guys are just going to drift offtopic and talk about other countries instead of CHINA in this thread.
I'm going to move this to World Armed Forces forum.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
Somebody said the Tomahawk has a range of 1600 Nm???

The official US Navy website lists the Block IV Tomahawk at 1600 km range.

I guess we're just mixing up the "N" and the "k"

Anyway it's pretty irrelevant since the Tomahawk doesn't designed to hit moving targets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
coolieno99

coolieno99

Junior Member
swimmerXC said:
Look at history when Philip II sent the Spanish Armada against England in 1588, everyone thought that the Armada would destory the English Fleet and eventaully conquer England failed... the Spanish at the time was consider and viewed as what we view the American Military now...
Click to expand...

An even better example and one that occurred not too long ago. The Dec. 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor attack. The day before the attack, the U.S. Navy was considered the most powerful navy in the world. The day after the attack the Imperial Japanese Navy became the most powerful navy in the world.:coffee:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
S

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Roger604 said:
Somebody said the Tomahawk has a range of 1600 Nm???

The official US Navy website lists the Block IV Tomahawk at 1600 km range.

I guess we're just mixing up the "N" and the "k"

Anyway it's pretty irrelevant since the Tomahawk doesn't designed to hit moving targets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

True.....But don't ignore the loitering capability. And yes, like Standard, the newest Tomahawk does have a limited but useful anti-ship ability. It can home using IR, HOJ, and probably real-time imagery which is known to be a new feature on these missiles. Unfortunately it's hard to find literature outlining this capability....very muich like Standards. But I did see it in a manufacturers brochure. It's design was directly affected by the improvements built into TBIP. But nevertheless, as I said before, the engagement envelope makes it unlikely to need it in this role. Right now, USN outranges all opponents by a minimum of 3 times.

Indianfighter said:
I am certain that India's ranking shall improve by 2009, as the Brahmos cruise missile is to be inducted in some more warships such as the recently launched destroyers INS Kolkata, the Admiral Gorshkov Aircraft Carrier and few other destroyers.
Click to expand...

That's a guarantee. Like China, India's naval capabilities are increasing very rapidly. As a matter of fact, with all the things being inducted into Indian service, they are going to become the premiere naval force in the Indian Ocean region. With Gorshkov and a modern nuclear submarine capability, they will have the best force projection of all Asian naval powers. Which is why I see PLAN leadership eyeing a carrier capability for themselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top