Pacific Ocean Naval Strenght

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

^ Well said jeff, though I think we should add the 20 or so jiangweis to the existing 054/As as it's only fair, when we're considering similarly older and capable (or uncapable) like japanese hatsuyuki, asagiri or korean ulsan classes.

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

But the reality that China faces could only let you count on that particular fleet that's in the theater, not the whole navy's combined strength - ie. if compare with the northeast Asia sector, it's the North Sea Fleet that counts, the East & South Sea Fleets would be tied down with their potential adversaries making their moves, thus unlikely for North Sea Fleet to get reinforcement from other fleets, instead to rely on shore-based firepower from other branches of the PLA.

And in that context, the current and foreseeable strength of the PLAN would only let it operate close to shore, but with blue-water capability should situation allows them to pull resources to form a taskgroup.

Whereas Japanese and S.Korean are largely set up to operate under the USN framework and supplement it, still they've almost everything better than the PLAN short of nuclear arsenal of their own.

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Well we're comparing the strength of navies and vessels, not the balance of assets in a confrontation scenario.

Because in a peacetime situation such as now each individual navy does effectively stand alone.

This thread is established to discuss Pacific Ocean naval strength.

This grows out of the recent discussion in the PLAN carrier thread.

Enjoy!

bd popeye super moderator

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Jeff Head said:

Japan has the following major combatants:

3 CVH (2 Hyuga and one 22DDH constructing)
12 DDG (Atago 2, Kongo 4, Akisuki 2, Hatakazi 2, Shirane 2)
36 FFG (Takaname 5, Murasame 9, Asagari 8, Hatsuyuki 8, Abukuma 6)
20 SS (Soryu 5, Oyashio 9, Harushio 4)
3 LPD (Osumi)

All of its destroyers and frigates are very capable, modern and well exercised. They have 48 of those guided missile surface combatants (I counted the Shirane as DDGs as opposed to DDHs because they carry three helos, but their weapons systems are a DDG fit). Their 20 subs are also very effective.

I would rate them as the second largest and most effective Navy in the region behind the US 7th fleet...but IMHO, the PLAN is rapdily closing that gap.

South Korea is also a very effective fleet...but smaller. 12 DDGs, 10 FFGs and 12 SS, with 2 LPHs (the second Dokdo nearing completion).

.

Click to expand...

I agree with Jeff on this one.
Japan's naval strength is underrated. some of those FFGs could normally be counted as DDGs. if the rating for plan ships are applied.
Also you didn;t count on the 100+ P3Cs MPAs they maintain,
vs the half a dozen chinese operate.
this is a critical force that is often over looked.

Jeff Head said:

By comparison, right now the PLAN (once they get the 6 52cs to sea) has 17 modern DDGs, 36 modern FFGs (includes 20 Jiangweis), 8-9 SSNs, 34 modern SSs, 3 modern LPDs, 20 relatively new LSTs, and one new carrier CV. A very strong fleet. As they add another carrier, more FFGs, SSNs, SSs, LPDs and ultimately more DDGs they will surpass Japan (and with training they actually probably equal or surpass them already) and ultimately Japan and Korea combined.

Click to expand...

China's on the other hand is her naval strength is over rated.
displacement and capabilities wise the 052/052B/051Bs are only are par with Takaname/Murasame class, (displacing 5000-6000 tons carrying shortmidrange sams... ) what nominally rated as FFGs...
The only modern destroyers in PLAN category, if everyone is counted using the same standards... are really the 052Cs and Project 956/E class, and may be the 2x 051Cs .

that leave anywhere from 8-12 modern airdefence destroyers if you count the ones in sea trials.

the 20 Jiangweis are not modern FFGs. they are patrol frigates that would not stand up in any scenario and most of them are due to retire.

imho,
the major naval "push" seen by the commentators are in-realities military industrial complex serving geo-politically driven rehtoric describing an catch up effort on part of china.


chinese naval strength is still weak, still too much catching up to do,
no where NEAR the dominating position some ill-informed people made them out to be.

the only reason may be some people are uncomfortable is may be because they are not the old brown water coastal patrol fleet that they used to be. and may...have some of the same toys that US japan has now.

22 posts and not a single examination of naval aviation.

To employ Chinese parlance, PLANAF sends a congratulatory telegramme.

Neither confrontational scenario nor naval strength comparison can be taken in isolation.

Discussion is this thread becomes very interestimg. My comments are:
1. We should never understimate the strength of any Navy. The PLA-N, could be powerful and have a sizeable Navy of modern ships in future. China is boosting its high-tech capabilities (own & "borrowed"), for both industrial development & defence. However, PLA-N actual fighting capabilities are unknown & not tested like the USN (World War II and recent major conflicts).
2. It is good to have other navies (Japan, South Korea, Aust & others) cooperate in training etc., & have a "balanced" of Naval/Military Power in the Asia-Pacific Region. The impending Naval Cooperation should not be seen as collective threat to China. We leave it to the leaders & diplomats to sort this one out.
3. There are concerns that the impending US Defence cuts could seriously effect the USN & the other Armed Services. All Naval & Military experts would be studying this moves. Let's review what we wrote in 5 years time.

Lacrimosa said:

22 posts and not a single examination of naval aviation.

To employ Chinese parlance, PLANAF sends a congratulatory telegramme. （海军航空兵发来贺电）

Neither confrontational scenario nor naval strength comparison can be taken in isolation.

Click to expand...

Man you rocks!

To be fair, China knows the priorities, which is AREA DENY first, POWER PROJECTION? Not-that-soon. All the PLAN build ups from the begining till the very recent, area deniability is the core strategy, and core function. To comparing "who dwarfs who" in the percepted arena of PLAN, is meaningless. Effectively projects enough maihem to the enemy so that the enemy is combat ineffective in a certain area across certain period of time, realizes the goal (of the potential conflict).

All the build ups of PLAN are serving this goal, and thus (have to) overlooking the Power Projection goal (goal, not "capability"). PLAN can not make a decisive stand-off outside her naval aviation's protection zone, and can make a decisive stand-off within her naval aviation's protection zone. That's a statement, that's a fact. Sino-phobia articles by any source is not going to change that, in the foreseenable future.

Japan's naval strength is not measured only by the JMSDF ships, but also the air wing and the Japanese Coast Guard. The JMSDF's P-3C fleet completely dwarfs all other P-3C users except the US, while China has just started rolling out their Y-8GX6 maritime patrol aircraft. The Chinese navy aviation have a long way to go to match JMSDF's capability in this area.

Japan's defense budget has a self-imposed limit to 1% of its GDP, but that applies only to the 3 official branches of the military. The Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) is exempt from this budget limit. For more info, here's an article on the subject:


Compared to the JCG, the Chinese Coast Guard fleet is very much behind. I'd say that the Chinese Coast Guard does not have sufficient ships and aircraft to effectively carry out its mission today. They need more cutters with aviation capability.

^ Well if we start comparing P-3Cs of the JMSDF then we can bring up the potent aerial assets of the PLANAF (technically navy)

So that's some two regiments of MK2+J-11BH, five regiments of JH-7/As, three regiments of J-8F+J-7E and a regiment of J-10H (see "how many fighters does china have" thread).
The title of this thread's too broad and ambiguous to answer. Pacific ocean naval vessel strength or something of the like would be far easier to determine rather than mixing in confrontation scenarios, alliances, land based aircraft in which we can see no clear order.