China Chinese Navy Growth: Massive Expansion Of Important Shipyard

[xizhimen]

Chinese Navy Growth: Massive Expansion Of Important Shipyard​

China has an ambition to expand and modernize its navy on a scale not seen in any other country. Analysis of satellite imagery suggests that one of China's most important shipyards is being increased in size.​

15 Mar 2022

Click To Enlarge. Analysis of satellite imagery confirms steady construction on the new site fore over a year. Key roads and buildings are already present, and there are indications of dry dock construction.

Jiangnan shipyard on the Yangtze River in Shanghai is important for the Chinese Navy (PLAN). It builds aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines. The correspondingly large shipyard occupies over 7.3 square kilometers (2.8 square miles). Now a new yard next door, associated with the Hudong-Zhonghua yard will expand the shipbuilding area by around 50%.

Work has already started. Analysis of satellite imagery confirms construction visually matching the expected expansion.

The incredible growth of the Chinese Navy has seen several shipyards expanded already. Jiangnan shipyard, which is situated next to the new site, has itself been expanded massively in recent years. Added to this, new facilities to build large numbers of submarines has been set up near Wuhan. And the nuclear submarine facilities at Huludao have also been massively expanded. Now the new work at Jiangnan takes this further still.

The new facilities will dramatic increase capacity at the yard. It is expected to have a basin for fitting out ships and a large multi-berth dry dock.

A Fleet of 6 Aircraft Carriers​

The U.S. Navy expects that the Chinese Navy may operate 6 aircraft carriers by 2040. Currently only two are operational, built at Dalian in Northern China. But the third, the improved and enlarged Type-003, is under construction at Jiangnan. It seems likely that one or more of the additional carriers will also be built at Jiangnan.

One hypothesis is that China will built nuclear powered aircraft carriers. These may be even larger still than the Type-003, which is anyway almost the same size as the U.S. Navy’s Ford Class. The larger ship, and new technologies involved, may dictate a new construction site. This is one explanation for the new site.

There are rumors that the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, if the plan exists, has been put on hold. Even if it is delayed however, it may still be a factor in the shipyard expansion.

Beyond Carriers​

It is not just aircraft carriers of course. Hyudong have also been building warships, including the Type-071 landing ships and Type-075 assault carrier. It also builds the more numerous Type-054A frigate, many of which are for export. In fact the export orders may be getting in the way of PLAN construction at its existing site in Shanghai. This may be one motivation for the new site.

Some Type-055 Renhai class cruisers and Type-052D destroyers are also built on the Jiangnan side. Additionally, large space tracking ships, hovercraft and experimental submarines have recently been launched.

Both shipbuilders have a rich history, and both are now part of China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) which is the world’s largest shipbuilder. As well as warships they also build merchant ships. These include ginormous container ships which are larger than the aircraft carriers.

There is naturally a lack of clarity in some of the available information. Some sources suggest that the Like many things with the Chinese Navy and shipyards we may be kept guessing until the end. But analysts will be watching developments closely.

Chinese Navy Growth: Massive Expansion Of Important Shipyard - Naval News

China has an ambition to expand and modernize its navy on a scale not seen in any other country. Analysis of satellite imagery suggests that one of China's most important shipyards is being increased in size.

www.navalnews.com

 

[xizhimen]

China and US naval strength comparsion in Asia-Pacific region by 2025

 

[McCool]

That graphic is misleading. That is the forward deployed US fleet and airpower in Japan. And they'll fight any agression with the full backing of the excellent air and naval element of Japan's JSDF

In war, the US will commit more of its fleet and airpower than in the picture you see.

 

[xizhimen]

That graphic is misleading. That is the forward deployed US fleet and airpower in Japan. And they'll fight any agression with the full backing of the excellent air and naval element of Japan's JSDF

In war, the US will commit more of its fleet and airpower than in the picture you see.

It's from a foreign source, where is your source?

 

[McCool]

It's from a foreign source, where is your source?

That lone US carrier is the USS Ronald Reagan permanently stationed in Yokosukua naval base, Japan as part of the 7th fleet and that 6 destroyers are its escort. While the rest is part of the US navy fleet in Sasebo, centered around the USS America (LHA 6)

U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan

The USS Blue Ridge, flagship, U.S. Seventh Fleet.

Carrier Strike Group Five:
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS Antietam (CG-54)
USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
USS Shiloh (CG-67).

Destroyer Squadron 15:
USS Barry (DDG-52)
USS Benfold (DDG-65)
USS Milius (DDG-69)
USS Higgins (DDG-76)
USS Howard (DDG-83)
USS Dewey (DDG-105)
USS Rafael Peralta (DDG-115).

U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan
Main article: U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo
USS America (LHA-6)
USS New Orleans (LPD-18)
USS Green Bay (LPD-20)
USS Rushmore (LSD-47)
USS Ashland (LSD-48)
USS Patriot (MCM-7)
USS Pioneer (MCM-9)
USS Warrior (MCM-10)
USS Chief (MCM-14)

United States Seventh Fleet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

now the US has 12 supercarriers in total which could be deployed if crisis arise. On the contrary 2 out of 3 Chinese carriers are training carriers.

The graphic also didn't mention assets of US allies like Japan which will be under joint command if war happens.

 

[xizhimen]

That lone US carrier is the USS Ronald Reagan permanently stationed in Yokosukua naval base, Japan as part of the 7th fleet and that 6 destroyers are its escort. While the rest is part of the US navy fleet in Sasebo, centered around the USS America (LHA 6)

U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan

The USS Blue Ridge, flagship, U.S. Seventh Fleet.

Carrier Strike Group Five:
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS Antietam (CG-54)
USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
USS Shiloh (CG-67).

Destroyer Squadron 15:
USS Barry (DDG-52)
USS Benfold (DDG-65)
USS Milius (DDG-69)
USS Higgins (DDG-76)
USS Howard (DDG-83)
USS Dewey (DDG-105)
USS Rafael Peralta (DDG-115).

U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan
Main article: U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo
USS America (LHA-6)
USS New Orleans (LPD-18)
USS Green Bay (LPD-20)
USS Rushmore (LSD-47)
USS Ashland (LSD-48)
USS Patriot (MCM-7)
USS Pioneer (MCM-9)
USS Warrior (MCM-10)
USS Chief (MCM-14)

United States Seventh Fleet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

now the US has 12 supercarriers in total which could be deployed if crisis arise. On the contrary 2 out of 3 Chinese carriers are training carriers.

The graphic also didn't mention assets of US allies like Japan which will be under joint command if war happens.

The original article, I guess it's debatable

The Chinese military will outmatch the US in the Pacific by 2025 - Sandboxx

Earlier in March, the top U.S. commanders in the Indo-Pacific and Pentagon officials gave testimony in Congress about the balance of U.S. and Chinese forces in the region. Although the US military and its allies still have the preponderance of equipment, the future doesn’t look quite as good...

www.sandboxx.us

 

[xizhimen]

China finished 12 Type 054A in the past 12 months, average one in each month, combined tonnage is over 40,000 tons.

China delivers 2nd Type 054A/P frigate to Pakistan

China delivers 2nd Type 054A/P frigate to Pakistan - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

 

[Gary]

This is an interesting proposal by the US to turn the P-8 Poseidon into a bomber. They'll need this to deal with China (I must admit) impressive shipbuilding.

A pure anti shipping version should be interesting to seek.

The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship

A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.

www.thedrive.com

The P-8 has four wing pylons. Each of these stores stations, which are rated at 2,500 pounds, are able to carry standoff cruise missiles, such as AGM-84 Harpoons and SLAM-ERs, and eventually the stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). If the P-8 can carry LRASM, the RB-8 can carry its land-attack sister weapon, the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), as well as LRASM, and more types of advanced air-launched standoff weapons are on the way. But unlike a fighter, it can carry those weapons over thousands of miles from an aerial refueling tanker, like U.S. bomber aircraft.

Four JASSMs delivered for standoff attacks by fighters flying from bases thousands of miles from their launch points in the Pacific would require a large tanker commitment. The RB-8 would require a fraction of those resources and it could actually execute that mission with near-737 efficiency, which is far cheaper and more reliable than a bomber or even a jet transport aircraft.


Rrecently the US has developed and tested a modified JDAM for anti shipping called the quicksink.

The P-8 modified bomb bay could accommodate this, I believe.

A torpedo gets loaded into a P-8's weapons bay. , USN
Alternatively, 500-pound or 1,000-pound JDAMs or laser-guided bombs, or even five small cruise missiles capable of standoff attacks, such as Israel's Delilah or the new Sea Breaker anti-ship missile, could be carried internally. Israel is already intending on selling Sea Breaker to the United States.


Japanese P-1 Maritime Patrol Planes are already tested with anti shipping munitions as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...pods-loaded-with-radar-jamming-little-buddies

 

[Gary]

This is an interesting proposal by the US to turn the P-8 Poseidon into a bomber. They'll need this to deal with China (I must admit) impressive shipbuilding.

A pure anti shipping version should be interesting to seek.

The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship

A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.

www.thedrive.com

The P-8 has four wing pylons. Each of these stores stations, which are rated at 2,500 pounds, are able to carry standoff cruise missiles, such as AGM-84 Harpoons and SLAM-ERs, and eventually the stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). If the P-8 can carry LRASM, the RB-8 can carry its land-attack sister weapon, the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), as well as LRASM, and more types of advanced air-launched standoff weapons are on the way. But unlike a fighter, it can carry those weapons over thousands of miles from an aerial refueling tanker, like U.S. bomber aircraft.

Four JASSMs delivered for standoff attacks by fighters flying from bases thousands of miles from their launch points in the Pacific would require a large tanker commitment. The RB-8 would require a fraction of those resources and it could actually execute that mission with near-737 efficiency, which is far cheaper and more reliable than a bomber or even a jet transport aircraft.


Rrecently the US has developed and tested a modified JDAM for anti shipping called the quicksink.

The P-8 modified bomb bay could accommodate this, I believe.

A torpedo gets loaded into a P-8's weapons bay. , USN
Alternatively, 500-pound or 1,000-pound JDAMs or laser-guided bombs, or even five small cruise missiles capable of standoff attacks, such as Israel's Delilah or the new Sea Breaker anti-ship missile, could be carried internally. Israel is already intending on selling Sea Breaker to the United States.


Japanese P-1 Maritime Patrol Planes are already tested with anti shipping munitions as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...pods-loaded-with-radar-jamming-little-buddies

The Bone (B-1) could carry as much as 24 JASSM in its belly, which means it could also carry the same number of LRASM, while the B-52 and B-2 could carry 20 and 16 respectively. A flight of 4 B-1 could swarm the seas with 96 LRASM anti ship missile and overwhelmed shipboard defense.

The upcoming B-21 should be even more interesting because it's ELO (Extremely Low Observable) characteristics could mean the B-21 be able to penetrate deep into hostile territories and carpet bomb a huge area. Such as shipyards

The B-21 predecessor, the B-2 are able to carry 80 2000lb JDAM in its belly.

Once hostile enemy shipbuilding industry and naval fleet are crippled, the USN could ensue a blockade with its own fleet rather than try to seek each other in Midway style battle.

 

[xizhimen]

The Bone (B-1) could carry as much as 24 JASSM in its belly, which means it could also carry the same number of LRASM, while the B-52 and B-2 could carry 20 and 16 respectively. A flight of 4 B-1 could swarm the seas with 96 LRASM anti ship missile and overwhelmed shipboard defense.

The upcoming B-21 should be even more interesting because it's ELO (Extremely Low Observable) characteristics could mean the B-21 be able to penetrate deep into hostile territories and carpet bomb a huge area. Such as shipyards

The B-21 predecessor, the B-2 are able to carry 80 2000lb JDAM in its belly.

Once hostile enemy shipbuilding industry and naval fleet are crippled, the USN could ensue a blockade with its own fleet rather than try to seek each other in Midway style battle.

They are free to try, but before that, China's unrivaled shipbuilding industry will still roar ahead at full throttle year on year.

 

[Gary]

They are free to try, but before that, China's unrivaled shipbuilding industry will still roar ahead at full throttle year on year.

Not if China 's shipyards are destroyed.

The upcoming B-21 are designed with deep penetration in mind.

 

[xizhimen]

Not if China 's shipyards are destroyed.

The upcoming B-21 are designed with deep penetration in mind.

I've already said it, They are free to try, but before that, China's unrivaled shipbuilding industry will still roar ahead at full throttle year on year.
And they better try it within 5 years, because if they plan to do it 10 years from now, that could be too late for them

 

[Jagdflieger]

Not if China 's shipyards are destroyed.

The upcoming B-21 are designed with deep penetration in mind.

The USA attacking Mainland China can be out-ruled IMO - because it would not offer any benefit or gain in regards to China's retaliation onto the USA and it's allies.

The USA has never allowed for a war with any of it's adversaries being carried out onto it's own territory since around 1820. The Cuba crisis wasn't averted by Kennedy via threatening with nukes (myth) - but simply because the Soviet-Union was aware that they could not beat the USA conventionally - especially not next to the USA's border/mainland.
Why is the USA not willing to attack Iran decisively?, because it would bring most likely Russia's ICBM's into play.....

The USA has always and will always conduct proxy wars - or attack underdogs that are not prone to receiving full support by another Superpower.

 

[Gary]

The USA attacking Mainland China can be out-ruled IMO

what ? The B-21 is designed in mind for a strike deep into China's heartland.

US ramps up B-21 stealth bomber production ‘to take on China’

US Air Force secretary says five aircraft are under construction, up from two in previous reports.

www.scmp.com

The Future of Long-Range Strike​

When it comes to delivering America’s resolve, the B-21 Raider will be standing by, silent and ready. We are providing America’s warfighters with an advanced aircraft offering a combination of range, payload, and survivability. The B-21 Raider will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes anywhere in the world. The B-21 is the future of deterrence.

B-21 Raider | Northrop Grumman

B-21 Raider, the future of long-range strike, will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes anywhere in the world.

www.northropgrumman.com

Even the name (Raider) suggest that this will be used to strike deep into enemy territory, if you missed anything the B-21 "Raider" is named after the Doolitle raiders who attacked deep into Tokyo in the early stage of WWII.

Doolittle Raid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- because it would not offer any benefit or gain in regards to China's retaliation onto the USA and it's allies.

China's only option is to attack Guam or US bases in Japan and OZ, which will drag Japan into an American war, thereby greatly strengthening US forces.

I know what you think, China will use nuclear weapons on US soil in retaliation of US (conventional) bombing on China's, not going to happen as it will ensure their own destruction.

The USA has never allowed for a war with any of it's adversaries being carried out onto it's own territory since around 1820. The Cuba crisis wasn't averted by Kennedy via threatening with nukes (myth) - but simply because the Soviet-Union was aware that they could not beat the USA conventionally - especially not next to the USA's border/mainland.
Why is the USA not willing to attack Iran decisively?, because it would bring most likely Russia's ICBM's into play.....

The USA has always and will always conduct proxy wars - or attack underdogs that are not prone to receiving full support by another Superpower.

We are talking a scenario where escalation turns ugly but both sides will rule out the use of WMD, so yes, the Chinese will be attacking US forces is Japan and in US territories (Guam). Both doesn't have the escalation dominance , but will continue to escalate into a big conventional war.

Think about a small military/diplomatic incident near Taiwan or the SCS turns hot escalation scenario.

The US will use its aerial dominance to dictate the outcome of the war. As it used to.

 

[xizhimen]

lol, when do you guys thinkt this your imaginary war would happen?

 

[Jagdflieger]

what ? The B-21 is designed in mind for a strike deep into China's heartland.

The USA will term any military asset as supposed to deter Chinese expansion - including a toilet seat in the Pentagon

China's only option is to attack Guam or US bases in Japan and OZ, which will drag Japan into an American war, thereby greatly strengthening US forces.

China IMO does not have any intentions towards attacking any other nation - aside if being forced to do so in self-defense.

I know what you think, China will use nuclear weapons on US soil in retaliation of US (conventional) bombing on China's, not going to happen as it will ensure their own destruction.

Have you been to China? talked to it's government and military? or it's population? and challenged their resolve on purpose or unintended?
If you had or would - then you might know as to how determined they are in such matters regarding their nation and including the defiance towards losses.

Same goes IMO for Israel - facing the certainty of defeat - would you think that Israel would refrain from using it's Nukes?

We are talking a scenario where escalation turns ugly but both sides will rule out the use of WMD, so yes, the Chinese will be attacking US forces is Japan and in US territories (Guam). Both doesn't have the escalation dominance , but will continue to escalate into a big conventional war.

As long as the USA and it's allies will refrain from attacking Chinese mainland - nothing aside from all parties loosing ships/aircraft and crews will happen.

Think about a small military/diplomatic incident near Taiwan or the SCS turns hot escalation scenario.

The USA does not have the naval or aerial power/superiority to engage successfully the Chinese Armed Forces around Taiwan or in the SCS.

The US will use its aerial dominance to dictate the outcome of the war. As it used to.

That is exactly as to why the USA is so desperate to form a SCS alliance. Because the USA does not have aerial dominance towards China or in the SCS.
And China isn't Iraq or Afghanistan or Grenada or Vietnam, or Serbia or Syria, etc. - were the USA could unhindered make use of it's air-force.

 

[Gary]

The USA will term any military asset as supposed to deter Chinese expansion - including a toilet seat in the Pentagon

not that I know of

China IMO does not have any intentions towards attacking any other nation - aside if being forced to do so in self-defense.

How about this ? imagine a small incident and misunderstanding escalate into a total war, at that point no one really cares who start the war.

Have you been to China? talked to it's government and military? or it's population? and challenged their resolve on purpose or unintended?
If you had or would - then you might know as to how determined they are in such matters regarding their nation and including the defiance towards losses.

Same goes IMO for Israel - facing the certainty of defeat - would you think that Israel would refrain from using it's Nukes?

Bombing shipyards and sinking the PLAN fleet doesn't really count as a threshold of defeat, at best the CCP and the nation is humiliated, it's not like bombing China's population center and industry will result in the collapse of the CCP, the US wont land in the mainland anyway.

But if they do, well.....say goodbye for both and all of us.

The USA does not have the naval or aerial power/superiority to engage successfully the Chinese Armed Forces around Taiwan or in the SCS.

Yes they do, 12 carriers with 800+ jets on top of it, bombers flying all the way from CONUS, fighter jets from Okinawa, South Korea etc. and if PRC attacks those bases the US fly from, those country automatically enters the war.

if the US territory of Guam is attacked, article V of NATO will be activated, we're talking Germany sending their Typhoons, UK sending their QE2 and F-35s, France sending their De Gaulle CSG etc...

That is exactly as to why the USA is so desperate to form a SCS alliance. Because the USA does not have aerial dominance towards China or in the SCS.
And China isn't Iraq or Afghanistan or Grenada or Vietnam, or Serbia or Syria, etc. - were the USA could unhindered make use of it's air-force.

Desert Storm called in a grand coalition of 30+ countries against a singular Iraq, I don't think anyone ever would call the US doesn't have aerial dominance towards Iraq.

 

[xizhimen]

If a war broke out today near China, China's chance of winning will be around 60%, if it broke out 10 years from now, China's chance of winning will become over 90%. further down in the future, US will be nowhere to be seen in this region.

 

[Gary]

If a war broke out today near China, China's chance of winning will be around 60%, if it broke out 10 years from now, China's chance of winning will become over 90%. further down in the future, US will be nowhere to be seen in this region.

So what's the mathematical formula you used that you come up with 60% and 90% respectively ?

 

[xizhimen]

So what's the mathematical formula you used that you come up with 60% and 90% respectively ?

US lost every single mock war game against China in recent years, so 60% will be very moderate. in a decade, China's economy will be much much bigger than US and shipbuilding will become even more dominant, sustained military might in the end boils down to the economy and industrial might, based on the speed which Chinese military progressed in recent years, given another decade, it can again blows everyone's mind. China has money, industrial base, world largest skilled workforce, so time is on China's side, not US's.