Growing Naval Imbalance Between Expanding Chinese and Aging US Fleets

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China

Growing Naval Imbalance Between Expanding Chinese and Aging US Fleets​

A Pentagon report projects a 460-ship Chinese fleet by the 2030s.

By Steven Stashwick
November 09, 2021

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro issued his strategic guidance to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps in October, making clear that China was the department’s top strategic priority and an organizing principle for institutional reforms, calling it “the pacing challenge against which we must plan our warfighting strategies and investments.” He warned that China was the department’s most significant long-term challenge.

According to Del Toro, the real upshot for the navy and marine corps is that “for the first time in at least a generation, we have a strategic competitor who possesses naval capabilities that rival our own, and who seeks to aggressively employ its forces to challenge U.S. principles, partnerships, and prosperity.”

The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s burgeoning capabilities in relation to the U.S. Navy were put in stark relief by the Pentagon’s annual report on Chinese military activities, released last week. Perhaps the most significant findings in the report were upgraded assessments that China may double or even triple its nuclear arsenal by the end of the decade — made on the heels of revelations this summer of major new missile silo fields under construction in the Chinese interior.

The other highlight are projections for the size of the PLAN, which, like estimates for China’s nuclear ambitions, appear revised significantly up over the Pentagon’s 2020 report.

Last year’s report emphasized that China’s fleet was the largest in the world, with a battle force of 350 ships, compared to the U.S. Navy’s 293, but offered no estimate for how much larger the PLAN might grow, or how quickly. This year’s report lists the PLAN as having 355 battle force ships (the U.S. fleet now stands at 294 ships).

Three-hundred and fifty-five ships is a politically significant number in the United States — it was the goal set by the U.S. Navy for its own fleet during the Trump administration. The U.S. Navy’s last fleet architecture study in 2020 set out an (unfunded) plan to reach 355 ships by 2035, amid an even more ambitious plan to build a hybrid fleet of 500 traditional and unmanned platforms by 2045.

A net increase in fleet size by five ships over a year is significant, but far more significant is the report’s assessment that the overall size of China’s fleet could reach 420 by mid-decade — an extraordinary jump — and 460 ships by 2030, still five years before the U.S. Navy hopes to reach the size the PLAN is today (again, a goal that itself has not been fully funded by the U.S. Congress).

While the U.S. Navy has fewer ships, those ships still possess a qualitative edge over most of their Chinese counterparts: The U.S. maintains 10 carrier strike groups (soon to be 11) against China’s two far less capable groups, one of which is still principally used for training purposes; and the U.S. fleet still has nearly three times the number of advanced major surface combatants (destroyers and cruisers) as China.

But in sufficient numbers, even less-capable platforms can overwhelm fewer advanced ones, and the United States’ advantage in those most advanced warships is shrinking.

The PLAN is expected to launch its fourth Type 055 destroyer in December. Although sometimes described as a destroyer, at 12,000 tons displacement, with expanded command-and-control capabilities, and more vertical missile launchers than China’s advanced Type 052C and 052D destroyers, the Type 055 is more analogous to the U.S. Navy’s Ticonderogaclass cruisers. China is expected to build 16 Type 055s, which are likely to play a crucial air defense and escort role in China’s nascent carrier strike groups.

The U.S. Navy still has 22 active cruisers, but the Type 055s are brand new, while the Ticonderogas are approaching the end of their service lives, with the first beginning to decommission in the mid-2020s. The effort to buy a replacement for the aging U.S. cruisers has been a nearly two-decade odyssey stymied by conceptual shortcomings and Congressional balking at cost estimates, all while struggling to modernize and extend the existing Ticonderogas’ service lives.

The U.S. Navy’s latest solution to the impending “cruiser gap” is to fold the necessary air defense and command functions into a next generation destroyer that will eventually replace both the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. If the U.S. Navy keeps to its projected timelines, the first new destroyer will be ready in 2032. Until then, the Type III Arleigh Burke destroyer — a larger, more capable variant of the venerable class — is expected to fill in the traditional cruiser role in American strike groups as the Ticonderogas begin to decommission more rapidly toward the end of the 2020s.

But it may be wrong to project that China’s navy will continue to grow at its current rate, let alone an accelerating rate. A significant concern among U.S. naval experts is that even if U.S. ships are broadly more capable than equivalent Chinese warships, like the Ticonderoga-class, most of them are much older, require more maintenance, and will be retired sooner than their counterparts in the Chinese fleet.

But over the next 10 to 15 years China’s shipyards may struggle to maintain the current production rate as the PLAN’s current fleet ages and accrues a maintenance burden more comparable to what the U.S. fleet has today. At that point, it is possible either that China’s naval shipbuilding will have to slow to accommodate modernizing and maintaining its older ships, or the PLAN could instead choose to retire ships facing intensive mid-life overhauls to maintain production of newer, more advanced ships. This would keep China’s fleet relatively young and capable, but also prevent it from reaching the higher ends of U.S. projections.

In either case, the PLA Navy will continue to be a numerically larger force than the U.S. Navy, and an increasingly capable one.

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia

Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles.​


now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.

But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”

A warship is only as powerful as its weaponry. A popular criticism of the Royal Navy, for instance, focuses on the relatively anemic missile load-out of the British fleet’s otherwise big, high-tech vessels.


Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.

But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.

The disparity makes sense. At 4.5 million tons, the U.S. fleet displaces more than twice as much as the Chinese fleet does. Assuming reasonable weapons-loads, tonnage is a rough analogue of combat capability.


In this count, any over-the-horizon land-attack or anti-ship missile counts as an “offensive missile.” The tallies count missile tubes or launchers, not the munitions themselves. It’s always possible that a ship could sail into combat with fewer missiles than its launchers can hold, owing perhaps to a shortage of weapons.


In any event, the U.S. fleet in theory can sail into battle with 10,196 ship- or submarine-launched offensive missiles such as Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land-attack missiles.

That count is uncertain, as it’s unclear how many anti-ship missiles the U.S. Navy’s 52 attack and cruise-missile submarines routinely carry. The actual total number of USN offensive missiles might be closer to 10,500 or even higher.

 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China

Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles.​


now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.

But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”

A warship is only as powerful as its weaponry. A popular criticism of the Royal Navy, for instance, focuses on the relatively anemic missile load-out of the British fleet’s otherwise big, high-tech vessels.


Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.

But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.

The disparity makes sense. At 4.5 million tons, the U.S. fleet displaces more than twice as much as the Chinese fleet does. Assuming reasonable weapons-loads, tonnage is a rough analogue of combat capability.


In this count, any over-the-horizon land-attack or anti-ship missile counts as an “offensive missile.” The tallies count missile tubes or launchers, not the munitions themselves. It’s always possible that a ship could sail into combat with fewer missiles than its launchers can hold, owing perhaps to a shortage of weapons.


In any event, the U.S. fleet in theory can sail into battle with 10,196 ship- or submarine-launched offensive missiles such as Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land-attack missiles.

That count is uncertain, as it’s unclear how many anti-ship missiles the U.S. Navy’s 52 attack and cruise-missile submarines routinely carry. The actual total number of USN offensive missiles might be closer to 10,500 or even higher.

There is no doubt in overall capability, US navy is still ahead of China, what China is doing is catching up, with her immense shipbuilding capability.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
That's a lot of catching up to do.
When China first started to try to catch up with the west , people said it too, many believed that China can't reach developed level and world class infrastructure for at least 100 years. actually even most Chinese also believed so.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
When China first started to try to catch up with the west , people said it too, many believed that China can't reach developed level and world class infrastructure for at least 100 years. actually even most Chinese also believed so.
Yeah I said that's a lot of catching up, never say it can't be done.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
When Deng tried Japan's HSR in 1980's during his vistit , he was full of admiration of it, and deeply worries about China's future. " I feel like being strongly pushed forward" when being asked about how he felt on the train by proud Japanese journalist.

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
the largest issue for the USN is the retirement of the 22 Ticonderoga class cruiser, which had been proposed since 2011. Since then the US has launched/commissioned at least 13 Arleigh Burke class and 2 Zummwalt class destroyer, with more in waiting.

The deficiencies of the USN magazine load will more than be covered by the US Army and Marine corps acquisition of long range missile which will be stationed in US and allied territories all along the first and second island chain.

Also, the US has a strong alliance with the Japan and OZ, and increasingly willing to join forces once contingency arrive. Both has very respectable navy.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
the largest issue for the USN is the retirement of the 22 Ticonderoga class cruiser, which had been proposed since 2011. Since then the US has launched/commissioned at least 13 Arleigh Burke class and 2 Zummwalt class destroyer, with more in waiting.

The deficiencies of the USN magazine load will more than be covered by the US Army and Marine corps acquisition of long range missile which will be stationed in US and allied territories all along the first and second island chain.

Also, the US has a strong alliance with the Japan and OZ, and increasingly willing to join forces once contingency arrive. Both has very respectable navy.
US military is always about global domination, Chinese military doesn't have that burden, we can take time, step by step based on our own planning and pace. Economy is alway the first priority, once you have the overal economy, industrial and manufacutring capacity, all things will come with them eventaully, if you lose those capacities and still push for unsustainable military spending, you will end up like Soviet Union.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
US military is always about global domination, Chinese military doesn't have that burden, we can take time, step by step based on our own planning and pace. Economy is alway the first priority, once you have the overal economy, industrial and manufacutring capacity, all things will come with them eventaully, if you lose those capacities and still push for unsustainable military spending, you will end up like Soviet Union.

Just because China only have to commit itself to only one theater doesn't mean it's a China advantage. By operating globally the US is in a position to choke you in the Malacca strait and in Arabian sea, without those oil and material, China's manufacturing will suffer.

and lets be realistic, is there one country out there that have the capacity to do anything serious while the US is busy with you in the Pacific ? at best it's only minor annoyance by countries like Iran.

The US spent 6% GDP on its military during the Reagan era, today it's only 3.2%.

If the US doesn't bankrupt back then they're not going to be now.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Just because China only have to commit itself to only one theater doesn't mean it's a China advantage. By operating globally the US is in a position to choke you in the Malacca strait and in Arabian sea, without those oil and material, China's manufacturing will suffer.
Let them do it, due to the fact that US is highly dependent on Chinese goods, blocking China is the same as blocking themselves.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Let them do it, due to the fact that US is highly dependent on Chinese goods, blocking China is the same as blocking themselves.
not really, just like the Australian coal case, the US will eventually find a replacement, when it comes to business if you can't provide, the other will take over.

on the other hand you WILL suffer, think about your coal supply getting blocked, and you must resort to power cuts. Or mass hunger because all your food imports are blocked in the Malacca strait.


3.742% and keeps going up

in the 80s its up to 6%, no big deal.

talking about economy your China is slowing down to the pace of the 90s.

that means less and less money thrown to military ???
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
not really, just like the Australian coal case, the US will eventually find a replacement, when it comes to business if you can't provide, the other will take over.
Hopefully they can find a replacement quickly cause China develops very fast, by the time they do find a replacement, it could be a whole different world and they might no longer has the ability to block China. It takes a country decades to build into a global supply hub, US must do it fast.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
, it could be a whole different world and they might no longer has the ability to block China.

they could. Remember ?? the USN operates globally.

a task force each in the Malacca strait, Arabian sea is enough.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
they could. Remember ?? the USN operates globally.

a task force each in the Malacca strait, Arabian sea is enough.
Let time tell, we'll see. but they got to find a replacement fast, time is till running out.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,918
Reactions
21 12,495
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
List of planned retired Ticonderoga, 12 planned till 2026

2022

San Jacinto (CG-56), ’’Lake Champlain’’ (CG-57), Monterey (CG-61),
Hué City (CG-66), Anzio (CG-68),
Vella Gulf (CG-72), Port Royal (CG-73)

2023

Bunker Hill (CG-52), Mobile Bay (CG-53)

2024

Antietam (CG-54), Shiloh (CG-67)

2026

Chancellorsville (CG-62)


===================================+++
===================================+++

Arleigh Burke planned to be commissioned into at least 2024

2021

Daniel Inouye (DDG 118)

2022

Carl M Levin (DDG 120),
Frank E Petersen (DDG 121)
John Basilone (DDG 122)

2023

Jack H Lucas (DDG 125)
Patrick Gallagher (DDG 127)

2024

Lenah S Higbee (DDG 123)
Harvey C Barnum (DDG 124)

2025-2026 ???

DDG 126
DDG 128
DDG 129
DDG 130
DDG 131
 
Top Bottom