PLAN Current Vessel Inventory Thread

[FORBIN]

Very interesting and nice ! thanks for sharing long to do it.

I guess for the surface combatants I could also make a chart on point / area air defence and ASh/LACMs in the fleet. Plus available common VLS cells. Maybe, if I find some time.
Before the "tonnage request" came up I had prepared other numbers already, which may show up here shortly ...

Damn ! looking forward

 

[Blitzo]

Ok here it is. Essentially the same charts as above, however with the combined full load tonnage on the y-axis.

Surface combatants first. The "size" of the fleet has more than doubled in 15 years. It's the many FFGs and large DDGs.

Next is the submarines again. The rather large Kilos added considerably to the fleet size about 10 years ago. And then the 039A. For the 035 I adjusted the last few years to arrive at 11 in the end. Which explains that part decreasing a bit faster.

Then we have the amphibs. The 4 071s increased amphib tonnage by almost 2/3 over the last 8 years. And with their large flight deck and organic helos added limited sea-borne airlift to the mix. That bonus doesnt even show up here.

I guess for the surface combatants I could also make a chart on point / area air defence and ASh/LACMs in the fleet. Plus available common VLS cells. Maybe, if I find some time.
Before the "tonnage request" came up I had prepared other numbers already, which may show up here shortly ...

Amazing job -- these three graphs have immediately become one of the most easy to understand and comprehensive resources depicting the cumulative growth of the chinese naval order of battle and their capability over the last decade!

 

[Scratch]

All right, squeezing the last bit of info from my .calc sheet, these will likely be the closing remarks (part 1) of my "the PLAN in numbers" chapter.

A picture of that nature isn't complete without embedding it in a global context, ... I guess. I also hope this will not be regarded as confrontational. It compares the size (by numbers) of four large navies. The PLAN, USN, the Russian Navy and a notional "European Navy".
The proper russian numbers were quite hard to come by, with the actual status of many vessels difficult to find out. Active, reserve, decommissioned, overhaul / repair (which can be rather lengthy in Russia today).
On the European side, I may be a bit inconsistent as wo what I include or leave out againt the major surface combatant category.

The number of surface combatants first. All the older russian costal corvettes are left out, only the latest vessels which are properly ocean-going are in. On the european side several light patrol FFs are counted. Maybe because of that the numbers is overblown a bit in the early 2000s, when those were still in service.
In the USN, the LCS are not counted, as I think in their current config they are not even matching 056, K130 or Steregushchy type capability.

For the modern vessel, all the OHP and it's derivatives are out, as the many older light FFs in Europe. Also the Kashin, Udaloy I and Krivak in Russia.

Then there are the subs. On the Russian side same issue with vessel status. There's quite a bit of guessing and interpolating. They got rid of several older SSN in the early 2000s I guess. The "european" and PLAN subs are numerous, but are mainly SSK, whereas the USN fleet is SSN only, of course

Finally, modern subs, disregarding base 688, pre-Akula and the small pre-AIP SSK in Europe.

 

[Scratch]

Closing remarks (part 2). While there are too many types to do the "tonnage" thing in Europe, it's rather quick for the USN.

First is the complete surface / sub force

Then we have the fleet of modern vessels only.

If we think in terms of total tonnage, the PLAN's "catching up" with the USN is way less impressive then the raw unit numbers suggest. Only with the latest vessels does the PLAN produce the volume, as in mass, to match the Arleigh-Burke built over the last decade.

And in closing, the number of AShM/LACM, point-def AAW and area AAW missiles deployed fleetwide (only from 053H2 onward, for older ones there seems to be a wide variety in loadout). It does not yet include the two 052D as I'm unsure about it's typical layout and wether there's actually a "quack pack" capability. That would produce a real spike at the end.

 

[Jeff Head]

Some rough figures regarding current and projected US Navy and PLAN force levels for major surface combatant force levels:

-------------------------------- Current 2015 -----------------------------

US Navy - Current
06 x LCS (FF)
62 x Burke Class DDG
01 Zumwalt Class DDG
22 x Tico Class CG
91 Total Major Surface combatants
- 06 Frigates
- 63 Destroyers
- 22 Cruisers

PLAN - Current
10 x Type 053H2 FFG
24 x Type 056 FFL
02 x Type 054 FFG
24 x Type 054A FFG
07 x Type 051 DDG
01 x Type 051B
02 x Type 051C
04 x Sovremmenny
02 x Type 052
02 x Type 052B
06 x Type 052C
02 x Type 052D
86 Total Major Surface Combatants
- 60 Frigates
- 26 Destoryers

-------------------------------- Projected 2020 -----------------------------

US Navy - 2020
22 x LCS (FF)
68 x Burke Class DDG
03 ZUmwalt Class
22 x Tico Class CG
115 Total Major Surface Combatants
- 22 Frigates
- 71 Destroyers
- 22 Cruiser

PLA - 2020
10 x Type 053H3 FFG
38 x Type 056 FFL
02 x Type 054 FFG
30 x Type 054A/B FFG
01 x Type 051B DDG
02 x Type 051C DDG
04 x Sovremmenny DDG
02 x Type 052 DDG
02 x Type 052B DDG
06 x Type 052C DDG
11 x Type 052D DDG
02 x Type 055 CG
110 x Major Surface Combatants
- 80 Frigates
- 28 Destroyers
- 02 Cruisers

IMHO, ultimately, in the near to mid term future the PLAN is going to standardize on these (and their direct follow-ons):

Type 056 FFL (Up to 60)
Type 054A/B FFG (Up to 36)
Type 052C/D DDG (Up to 24)
Type 055 CG (Up to 12)
Totaling out around 132-135 vessels

While the US standardizes on:

Freedom/Independence Class LCS/FF (Up to 56)
Burke Class IIA/III DDG (Up to 90)
Zumwalt Class DDG (3)
Totaling around 150 vessels

 

[FORBIN]

For MSC number close game but US DDG are more big and armed with twice as many missiles in more Naval Aviation/CVN, SSN, MPA ... for power USN is largely better.

Number of platforms remains very important despite improvements one can' t be at two places ofc and since end of Cold War the number to dramatically dropped in Western Countries dépends countries and now minimum not to exceed better have 3 decent ships as 2 very sophisticated and too expensive.

China have many boats military units, bases etc... Army style Cold War for size with conscription and wage conditions she have an army that is " cheap " same things for armaments.

Soviet Navy in 1980's was much closer of USN much powerful as PLAN now no comparison with some monsters Kirov, Oscar, Typhoon many Bombers anti-ships... China now don' t have that.
USSR also spending about 30 % of GDP for military budget US 13/15 % at this time, China much less but definitely more close of 200 bill $ as 100...

 

[lucretius]

Any news on what the US plans to do with it's Tico's?

It's my understanding that by 2020 half of them will be taken out of service for modernization, with the remaining 11 being replaced gradually by the modernized version...

ultimately leaving 11 in service?

 

[FORBIN]

First retired in 2019 some modernised ( have begin ) for get a service life of 44 years vs initialy 30, use Spruance hull after some problems at the begining cracks with high superstructures important for this hull problem fixed and finaly reliable ships, replaced by new Burke Fl IIa/III which have a very good hull better radar for Fl III but less missiles 96 vs 130 for Ticonderoga very nice/big DDG almost a CG but they are not.

And Ticonderoga are used actually as leader ship for conduct AAW duty in US TF especialy those including CVN because have 2 command post, Burke 1.

 

[prior]

I know that many people believe that PLAN will get 50, 60 or even more 056's but I think they will get only 40.
3 squadrons per fleet plus one for HK are more than enough for their role.
With penant numbers 580-599 and 501-520 (or 500-519 ?)
That way, they can use 24 more penant numbers for 054A, plus 24 more for next generation frigate (054B's or 057's or whatever) for when they will be available, plus 2 more for the two 054's.
Meanwhile they will be using some penant numbers for the existing 053's (all remaining members of the family) until they will be replaced by the newer 054B's (or 057's).
So, 40 056's, plus 24 054A's, plus 24 054B's, plus 2 054's, plus 10 053H3's.
Just an opinion (?)

 

[plawolf]

I don't think 054B numbers will be that high. If you cut that to 12 (1 squadron of 4 per fleet), it will still provide the PLAN with a very powerful Frigate force, but will save enough money and personnel for another 20 056s.

The extra 056s will be used primarily for the SCS and any overseas bases the PLAN establishes.

Basically, I see the PLAN using the 056s as their stock workhorse ship making up the numbers and supporting and getting support in term from a much smaller number of heavier "line" ships as and when needed.

So when the PLAN establishes a major overseas naval base, you will probably see a squadron of 4 x 056s being home ported there, with maybe 1 054A there at all times on rotation.

Same thing with the new island bases China has built in the SCS.

The 056s are small enough to not be seen as too much of a threat, have a small crew, so reduces the costs and logistical footprint of a long-term, long-distances permanent deployment. Yet they are more than capable of meeting the vast majority of the needs those far away bases may have, especially if supported with a small number of larger line ships like 054A/B or 052C/D etc.

And if worse comes to worse, they won't be a massive loss if someone launches a Pearl Harbour attack on one of those far away bases, or if there is a sudden incident back home, the PLAN doesn't have to worry that a significant part of its surface fleet strength is effective "stuck" half way around the world and unable to get back to help with the fight back home if hostile powers control vital geographic choke points.