Comparison between Russian, US and Chinese Naval fleets.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Even so, the US allies & India have their own naval & air buildups- when all those numbers added, China won't have a big overall advantage, if any.

USA does not have "allies" but henchmen, but it is obvious that you do not understand that.
The UK is the only exception because the US is the stupid child of the British crown.

I understand more than u think I do; whatever they r called, many of those nations have their own issues/scores with China to settle, & will defend their interests in Asia-Pac.
NATO & Japan r now cooperating as never before & if they sent their AWACS to USA after the 9/11 attacks, why can't they also send them to Australia, Guam & Hawaii in a crisis?

Tsavo Lion wrote:I understand more than u think I do; whatever they r called, many of those nations have their own issues/scores with China to settle, & will defend their interests in Asia-Pac.
NATO & Japan r now cooperating as never before & if they sent their AWACS to USA after the 9/11 attacks, why can't they also send them to Australia, Guam & Hawaii in a crisis?

No, those countries don't have any "issues", it's just that the US wants to maintain what is unsustainable, which is hegemony and dominance.
What kind of "issues" are you writing about, man, about a state that presents itself as a peacemaker and drops atomic bombs on Japan?
What do you know about the culture and peoples of South Korea, Greece, Japan or Germany ? YOU DONT KNOW NOTHING !
The Americans have bases in all those countries and you are convinced that they love them there?
They would probably piss and shit on Americans in those countries, if they could, but they can't because of their corrupt governments.

FYI, I've been to Europe & E/SE Asia, incl. Austria, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, PRC, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, several times to some- ASEAN & other PRC neighbors, not to mention Germany & Italy don't want Chinese hegemony either. So pl. stop this condescending talk with me.

Tsavo Lion wrote:FYI, I've been to Europe & E/SE Asia, incl. Austria, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, PRC, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, several times to some- ASEAN & other PRC neighbors, not to mention Germany & Italy don't want Chinese hegemony either. So pl. stop this condescending talk with me.

I don't care at all where you've been and if you've been..
The fact that you don't want Chinese hegemony is certainly not even close to how much the world DOESN'T want US hegemony.

I not only traveled around the world 2 times, but contrary to ur assertion, know others' cultures/history, & never said that any1 wants the US hegemony!

https://asiatimes.us14.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2049a8663daea00bd30c32cf2&id=13d69d171b&e=5455568640

https://youtu.be/Rj7ur92nmWI

US hegemony is killing people.

Chinese are massively present in Africa, they make business there and are very rude but they don't meddle in their politics or kill poeple with their "democratic bombs". With them you can just say goodbye and they will leave if you don't want to trade with them.

With the US you would have everything. A war, a puppet party, a blocus, cilians killed or should collateral damages. And you wouldn't even have started trading with them. Actually they wouldn't even be ble to show your country on a map (they could even attack a neighbouring country by mistake).

The problem with the US is that business always comes with a morality lecture and they always tell you what you can or cannot do but never follow their own rules or ethics.

Do as I say and not as I do.

Kudos to George or Garry for doing the PLA Navy vs US Navy column.
Finally a nice place where I can fry the US Navy...  

lancelot wrote:The Chinese Navy seems to be behind the Russian Navy in terms of supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. For example they seem to have no operational equivalent of either the Onyx or the Zircon. I have seen trade fair mockups of a Chinese Onyx clone (CX-1) but AFAIK it is not in use by the Chinese Navy. I also doubt their clone of the Kalibr is as effective or versatile as the Russian one. They cloned the Kalibr from the ones they got with the Kilo. But I doubt Russia exported all the many, many varieties of Kalibr to China. And they certainly did not export the surface ship long range version of the Kalibr.

To cover for the lack of supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles the Chinese developed surface ship launched anti-ship ballistic missiles though. The US doesn't even have those.

It's funny how people expect such hypersonic missiles systems to be ho-hum normal. They are an actual exceptional Russian achievement. Nobody else has them and
nobody else is close to having them. This includes the US wankers who claim Russia stole their non-existent missile tech.

China is obviously making progress, but it still has issues. For example, jet engines. If they were not behind, then they would not be demanding access to Russia's PD-35 as
part of the conditions for joint civilian aircraft design. This should give all the ho-hum "experts" a clue about what level of technology is involved in modern jet engine design.
EUV lithography machines are not the pinnacle.

Chinese nuclear submarines are basically trial designs. That they have more advanced features than 1960s submarines in the USSR is not relevant for their core characteristics.

To KVS...

I think the engine issue is resolved...
WS-15 engines are in production... “The mass production of WS-10 and WS-15 [engines] delivery has been achieved. Materials screening and verifications have been finalised,” Zhang said.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/chinese-ws-15-engine-prepared-for-mass-production

It's funny how people expect such hypersonic missiles systems to be ho-hum normal. They are an actual exceptional Russian achievement. Nobody else has them and
nobody else is close to having them. This includes the US wankers who claim Russia stole their non-existent missile tech.

The real achievement is that they are doing it with a jet engine instead of a rocket engine.

Hypersonic missiles are everywhere... Patriot, THAAD, SM-2, Iskander, S-300, S-400, S-500 etc etc but they are all rocket powered which makes them big and heavy and expensive and normally by the time they reach max range they are falling and unpowered so if they manouver they lose speed rapidly because a very large object turning at very high speed generates huge drag... Iskander is almost 5 tons in weight because of all the solid rocket fuel that keeps burning from launch to impact and is not really practical for much longer ranged missiles unless you add an extra stage to it that gets it up into the air and moving at high speed before its rocket motor starts up and does not have to lift the entire mass of the missile into the air and accelerate it to flight speed... which is how Kinzhal reaches 2,000km instead of 500km, because being launched from 18km altitude at mach 2.5 means all the rocket power it would use to get off the ground and up to a speed of mach 6 or mach 7 in the original Iskander missile, it can climb to much higher altitudes and much higher speeds where the air is thinner and it can coast faster for much longer.

If you are driving in the city at 50km/h in 4th gear and you just idle along you might keep going for quarter of a day... 6 hours, so you would go about 300km, but if you get onto the motorway and you get up to 100km/h and then just idled along in top gear... as long as there are no hills or lots of turns you will probably go for 6 hours, but that gets you 600km... twice as far. A solid rocket taking off from the ground uses most of its fuel overcoming inertia and getting the missile moving and climbing to altitude and to speed. In comparison a car uses very little fuel accelerating to 100km per hour on a motorway... even a steep hill does not burn a lot of extra fuel like having to lift the vehicle vertically to accelerate it and gain altitude.

Finally a nice place where I can fry the US Navy...

You are a member of this forum and if there is a topic you want to discuss and you can't find an existing thread you are free to create your own. If George or I or anyone else notices it might belong in an existing thread we might move it but unless it breaks the rules of the forum we wont delete it.

I won't do that.
I made a suggestion to do a page with Type-052B/C/D destroyers and Type-054A corvettes.
I am somehow convinced that the activity of those ships will be increased around the world.
My suggestion is to open a "Chinese destroyers" page or something like that, that would include all Chinese destroyers except the Type-055 (there is already a section), as well as "Chinese corvettes and frigates".
So everything could be combined in AT LEAST two sections.

Podlodka77 wrote:To KVS...

I think the engine issue is resolved...
WS-15 engines are in production... “The mass production of WS-10 and WS-15 [engines] delivery has been achieved. Materials screening and verifications have been finalised,” Zhang said.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/chinese-ws-15-engine-prepared-for-mass-production

China would be expected to advance so no inadequacy will last forever. This applies to its nuclear submarines.

I think the advance-quick policy of reverse engineering has a robust downside. You get under-developed capability. The USSR had to bite the bullet and develop everything
by itself, all the yapping about stealing precious western tech notwithstanding. It had to develop the scientific and engineering capacity and go through the trial and error of
design. China is reaching this state but is still encumbered with the legacy of short-circuit advancement.

054A frigate’s 32-cell VLS can hold HQ-16 MRSAM & Yu-8 Anti-sub missile. So air defense and anti-submarine missiles.



052D destroyer's 64-cell VLS can hold HHQ-9 LRSAM, CJ-10 land-attack cruise missiles, YJ-18A AShM.

What about the Admiral Kuznetsov... it has Naval TOR launchers with 196 missiles, and about 8 Kashtan systems with about 40 missiles per mount.

But the 196 missiles it carried were the old TOR model missiles where 8 missiles fitted into one vehicle, the current missiles are half the size and 16 missiles per vehicle and the new missiles are even smaller and can be carried in even larger numbers.

There is VLS and VLS.

If you can put only a tot or CAAM or aster 15 missiles in it it's only a SHORAD system.

If you can switch missiles at will it is an universal VLS and can be counted as a real modern VLS.

When we say it needs a VLS we think about the second sort of VLS.

The first is good as a bonus to add missiles here and there though.

The priority of Type-054A frigates appears to be ASW; rocket propelled ASW torpedo Yu-8 is launched from VLS.
In addition, the ships have two three-barrel torpedo tubes of caliber 324 mm, and also 2 × 6 Type 87 240 mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried).

Chinese Type-056 corvettes with a full displacement of 1,500 tons are also equipped with two three-barrel torpedo tubes.
In addition, they have AK-176, 2 X 2 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, and 1 × 8-cell FL-3000N SAM launcher, Helipad for 1 medium-lift helicopter

Problems in "paradise" with the dismantling of the CVN-65 aircraft carrier, but also problems in the announcement with the scrapping of Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which will have to be dismantled in a few years; CVN-68, etc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjux_OQ-tCCAxXN57sIHcC0AHgQFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbreakingdefense.com%2F2023%2F11%2Funcharted-waters-navy-navigating-first-ever-dismantling-of-nuclear-powered-carrier%2F&usg=AOvVaw3WrWi_42FX7Qd93pYSG_ne&opi=89978449

There is VLS and VLS.

If you can put only a tot or CAAM or aster 15 missiles in it it's only a SHORAD system.

Are there any universal VLS systems that can carry a decent amount of SHORAD missiles?

Using the UKSK-M to carry four 9M100 missiles per tube is pathetic... a 750mm diameter 10m deep missile tube with four tiny short range missiles loaded into it... that makes no sense at all.

Having a customised SHORAD missile launch tubes or being able to stack them in universal tubes is the only solution.

And the Kuznetsov had 192 launch tubes for SHORAD missiles and 6 Kashtan mounts with 40 missiles each... also for SHORAD, and it had 12 launch tubes for missiles the size of small fighter aircraft in the form of the 7.5 ton Granit... that is 444 missiles on an aircraft carrier... the new TOR missiles are half that size and are carried in double the quantity... so 384, plus the Kashtan mounts which presumably are compatible with the new quad missiles for use against drones and similar targets, so 40 x 6 x 4, so 40 x 6 = 240, but times 4 = 960, so 960 + 12 + 384 = 1356.

And that is assuming they don't replace the 12 Granits with 4 or 5 UKSK launchers...

But then of course this is relevant because the Chinese operate the Kuznetsovs sister ship...

Should Russia and China be concerned about this and do they have countermeasures?

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2169994/expeditionary-sea-base-esb/

https://www.hayden-island.com/stealth-boats/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Transfer_Dock

https://www.jfdglobal.com/products/tactical-diving-vehicles/carrier-seal/