Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_UH-1Y_4516-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_5220-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_1778-1.jpg

Yuma_17_PT-17_3864-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Chinese Navy News and Discussion

This is a discussion on Chinese Navy News and Discussion within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by weasel1962 Today its probably the 2nd largest and working itself upwards. Nope, that goes to the japanese. ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 9th, 2010   #16
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962 View Post
Today its probably the 2nd largest and working itself upwards.

Nope, that goes to the japanese. - and certainly in capability terms

eg look at the submarine forces, missile cruisers, CEC capability, expeditionary capability, ASW etc.....

the chinese are nowhere near the japanese in force structure and capability
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #17
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 87
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Nope, that goes to the japanese. - and certainly in capability terms

eg look at the submarine forces, missile cruisers, CEC capability, expeditionary capability, ASW etc.....

the chinese are nowhere near the japanese in force structure and capability
I think the Japanese are currently 2nd in capability, but the PLAN currently has the most ambitious building scheduale out of the USN for the forseeable future. I don't think the JMSDF have any real plans outside the Azizuki class and the hyuga/21k ton DDH.

The biggest problem is that the PLAN simply doesn't have as many destroyers and frigates yet -- the few they do have are pretty good if not world standard in their classes, but too few are in service.
Blitzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #18
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzo View Post
I think the Japanese are currently 2nd in capability, but the PLAN currently has the most ambitious building scheduale out of the USN for the forseeable future. I don't think the JMSDF have any real plans outside the Azizuki class and the hyuga/21k ton DDH.

The biggest problem is that the PLAN simply doesn't have as many destroyers and frigates yet -- the few they do have are pretty good if not world standard in their classes, but too few are in service.
PLAN
They don't have the force structure to participate in modern CEC environments
They don't have an effective sub force (even though they are making serious efforts to change that)
They don't have any expeditionary capability
They don't have any history in running blue water exercises
They don't have any practical experience in running fleet events
They don't have an effective marine force (as in self contained corp) to conduct discrete expeditionary work,

They're a long way from having japanese capability - let alone putting into place a coherent doctrine that they need to develop along with the modern force elements.

in absolute terms, they're nowhere near the sth koreans at a force maturity and force development level.

they are literally 5 years away from demonstrating the basic force constructs - and IMO closer to 10 years. At the same time, there will be a few countries in the PACRIm that will not be standing still and will not be letting china get an easy run to "parity" - let alone superiority
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 257
Threads:
I put the English Navy a clear second and French third right now in terms of capabilities. PLAN can be second 2018 or later if their planned expansion, especially with carriers and new subs, go smoothly.
Schumacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #20
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Quote:
PLAN
They don't have the force structure to participate in modern CEC environments
They don't have an effective sub force (even though they are making serious efforts to change that)
They don't have any expeditionary capability
They don't have any history in running blue water exercises
They don't have any practical experience in running fleet events
They don't have an effective marine force (as in self contained corp) to conduct discrete expeditionary work,

They're a long way from having japanese capability - let alone putting into place a coherent doctrine that they need to develop along with the modern force elements.

in absolute terms, they're nowhere near the sth koreans at a force maturity and force development level.

they are literally 5 years away from demonstrating the basic force constructs - and IMO closer to 10 years. At the same time, there will be a few countries in the PACRIm that will not be standing still and will not be letting china get an easy run to "parity" - let alone superiority
Agree wrt capability comparisons.

However, China still has the 2nd largest fleet in the world and working its way up. Largest is still determined by numbers.

Whilst Japanese, South Korean and navies that utilise traditional western naval training methods have fairly well known and/or documented capabilities, it is more difficult to gauge chinese technical capabilities and the operational effectiveness of their vessels particularly their subs. The publication of OMTE in 2008 raised a few eyebrows in US circles and received mention in the CMPR.

As an example, there is the claim that their force structure does not enable CEC or cooperative engagement capabilities. However datalinks are extensively used particularly in view of chinese capabilities in computing. At the same time, electronic warfare is recognised as a key element in chinese warfare (ie informationalization). Force coordination is enhanced through the introduction of new capabilites eg AEW, MP aircraft and joint exercises between the various arms etc. Joints ops was first noted as part of doctrine in 1999. At the very least, there are already surface appearances of the building blocks of CEC.

They may not be considered by some to have expeditionary and blue water capabilities but they have deployed their vessels for anti-piracy operations in the Indian ocean and started raising eyebrows when they deployed vessels off and past okinawa into the South China Sea in April of this year.

Once the anticipated CV begins operations, it is difficult to characterise the PLAN as a non-blue water navy.

Recently, more and more analysts are questioning what exactly is China's naval doctrine. If one reviews the 2010 CMPR, PLA Navy doctrine for maritime operations is stated as focussing on six offensive and defensive campaigns: blockade, anti-sea lines of communication, maritime-land attack, antiship, maritime transportation protection, and naval base defense.

Rather than comparisons to Japan which has differing doctrine and requirements, it might be more useful to consider how effective can China's navy be in achieving its intended aims currently and in the future.

For example, in a anti-SLOC scenario, Japan might be very effective with their vessels are but lack the numbers to patrol the entire SLOC so the Chinese navy might be able to interdict Japanese SLOC at various vulnerable points eg off philippines, south china sea etc.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #21
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
I put the English Navy a clear second and French third right now in terms of capabilities. PLAN can be second 2018 or later if their planned expansion, especially with carriers and new subs, go smoothly.
No CV capability for the next decade, thereafter 1.
Lead and only operational sub of the newest attack sub class running aground.
Lead DDG of the only DDG class with barely tested AAW capability and far lacking behind AEGIS capabilities like those of the Japanese Kongo.
A naval expeditionary capability that only extends to an assault brigade.
A future naval budget that will be occupied significantly by SSBN construction.
Supported by an airforce that will be mainly non-stealth (and having less stealth a/c than even Australia after 2020).

I'm not that clear how that is clear esp after the recent devastating cuts.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #22
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 328
Threads:
weasel 1962
Quote:
For FFGs, if one considers the number of Jiangweis and Jiangkais together, its almost 30 identified already or 60% of Jianghu numbers. Counting another 20+ Jianghus still in operation, there's no drop in numbers. Add in new 056s which will likely be able to replace existing Jianghu roles, I wouldn't be surprised if numbers do match or exceed prior numbers.
As far as I am aware, the 056 exists only as a model and so it is impossible to determine its final form and function. I know it is being referred to as by the PLAN as a "Light Frigate" but everybody else is calling it a Corvette.

If we are talking Corvettes, then we also have about 50 Type 37-I and Type 37-II variants that will become due for replacement over the course of this coming decade.

I agree with gf0012-aust about not overestimating the PLAN's current capabilities, but I also believe, that if the last decade was about the substantial modernisation of the PLA's land forces, then this decade will see the full modernisation of its navy. I disagree with gf0012-aust on his assessment on the ability of the US to keep pace with the change in differential, as I see very radical cuts in US defence spending during the next decade and in such circumstances it tends to be navies, as the most expensive service, that feel the brunt.
Sampanviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #23
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,472
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
I put the English Navy a clear second and French third right now ....
What English navy? There hasn't been an English navy for over 300 years.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #24
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962 View Post
History is no gauge. Japan defeated Russia in the Battle of Tsushima with no precedence before that. And then repeated the feat in the early years of WW2 until Midway. Brittania ruled the waves until then but history didn't prevent its decline. That's the benefit of technology.

China has had a modern navy since the 50s and was the 3rd largest navy in the 80s. Today its probably the 2nd largest and working itself upwards.

The 2009 ONI report on China's navy is a good starting source.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/oni/pla-navy.pdf

The problem of perception is the opposition. Comparison against the best, largest and most modern ie US navy, tends to make the other party "less effective". No doubts there.

It will take an investment level far higher than current before China catches up to the US navy.
You make an interesting point but the Japanese were a sea going people long before they tried to produce a modern sea going navy and they worked on it vigorously starting from the 1870’s and the navy was never considered to be a part of, or to be subservient to, the army. The battles with the Russians were a great success but they were battles, relatively speaking, in their own back yard. The war with the US was thirty years later. Taken together that was far more than forty years of serious naval development. The Japanizes still today have serious naval Institutions. Though the Japanize as a nation may no longer be aggressive, they still take their navy seriously and it had retained its hard won Institutional knowledge.

The point I was trying to make is that any good navy is far more than just ships, technology, and logistics, its strength is found within its personal. As I said I am not disrespecting the Chinese’s sailors. I know almost nothing about them but what I do know is that the experience necessary to make the best use of and then survive out there on the water, requires a lot of time spent out there on the water living and working on the water at ever time of year, in every weather condition, interacting with all the different peoples that also use the sea. It takes time for all the moods and strange phenomena that are seen, sometimes things that are only rarely seen, when you are out there floating around to be learned and thenbe internalized intuitionally within the navy and its people from top to bottom.

You may consider this a minor point but I asure you that it is not, there are various weather and sea conditions (some of which are unique to a particular geographic area) that will really change a tactical situation far beyond what the modeling, war gaming, or the simulations that Armchair Admirals can ever think of or invent. Or what can be reasonably learned in the typical naval fleet exercises of sailing happily out of port on a nice sunny day for a scripted exercise. Far more different than you to could ever believe. There are weather and sea state conditions, which can severally change the capacities of your sensors, (visional, radar, IR, sound), and even yourmost moderen communications (usually worse but sometimes better). They can also affect the capacity of you weapons and navigation.

Question, have you ever seen doubles skip radar returns, and if you did, did you know what you are seeing and did you understand how you can use them for you advantage or how they can change tactical assumptions about detection and targeting as just one example?

Last edited by rip; December 9th, 2010 at 04:28 PM.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010   #25
Defense Aficionado
Major General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,485
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
What English navy? There hasn't been an English navy for over 300 years.
Royal Navy.. hehe..

Royal Navy I would generally class a top tier navy, in the top 5, more likely 3 or 4th these days. But it depends on your criteria. In terms on personel, training, expandability growth I would put the RN right at the top as a casual armchair general. They have real global capability, even if they don't operate a huge number of ships but they do operate everything they have extremely effectively. While much is made of China's planned carriers, the RN carriers are more impressive.

Japan ranks highly because the *HUGE* number of vessels she operates and the quality there in. I would say China has a lot of developing before they could seriously expect the rival Japan's force and experience even if they exceed her in number. Even the older crappier japanese ships would stand up to most(some?) of the modern stuff comming out of china on a 1 to 1 basis. Japan has the depth to back it up, and Japan would never go it alone, she would operate in conjunction with the USN (so some things are complimentary). China can't.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010   #26
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,523
Threads:
Annual report to Congress - China

Here is a link to the above report http://www.andrewerickson.com/wp-con...CMPR_Final.pdf

General summary of PLA(N) is at page 11, leading through to doctrine developments on page 13.
Naval strategy on page 31, force modernization page 38 and extended operations on page 42 and power projection on page 46.
Also Aircraft Carrier program on page 57. Interesting to note on this subject that Brazil will be providing training to 50 PLA(N) Pilot Offiers in Carrier Flight Operations, had not heard of this before
I have not had a chance to read the entire report (83 pages) and has been on the to do list for a while now, so thought I would point it out for the thread.
While I agree with GF with regards to the bells and whistles being missing from the PLA(N) this will not be the case for very long, and even though it is missing they are still a formidable force not to be taken lightly, and what they lack in tech, they certainly make up for in spirit.
It will certainly be very interesting to watch them over the next decade and the progress they make
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010   #27
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: roanoke
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Here is a link to the above report http://www.andrewerickson.com/wp-con...CMPR_Final.pdf

General summary of PLA(N) is at page 11, leading through to doctrine developments on page 13.
Naval strategy on page 31, force modernization page 38 and extended operations on page 42 and power projection on page 46.
Also Aircraft Carrier program on page 57. Interesting to note on this subject that Brazil will be providing training to 50 PLA(N) Pilot Offiers in Carrier Flight Operations, had not heard of this before
I have not had a chance to read the entire report (83 pages) and has been on the to do list for a while now, so thought I would point it out for the thread.
While I agree with GF with regards to the bells and whistles being missing from the PLA(N) this will not be the case for very long, and even though it is missing they are still a formidable force nothis t to be taken lightly, and what they lack in tech, they certainly make up for in spirit.
It will certainly be very interesting to watch them over the next decade and the progress they make
I agree with your last remark It will be interesting to watch them in the future as we writing on this forum right now the Chinese Navy is working on some ships in there shipyards. I just sit and watch and listen to the reports about the Chinese Navy they seem to want to built there navy up. I was reading the paper one day back in 2003 that Chinese were working on over 20 ships. First thing came to my mind is that China is preparing for war. If you been at shipyard before the task of making a ship is no joke. If you making that many ships that would take alot resources to do
godbody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010   #28
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 362
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godbody View Post
I agree with your last remark It will be interesting to watch them in the future as we writing on this forum right now the Chinese Navy is working on some ships in there shipyards. I just sit and watch and listen to the reports about the Chinese Navy they seem to want to built there navy up. I was reading the paper one day back in 2003 that Chinese were working on over 20 ships. First thing came to my mind is that China is preparing for war. If you been at shipyard before the task of making a ship is no joke. If you making that many ships that would take alot resources to do
I doubt China wants to start any war. They just want to be the dominant naval power in the region and at the end the dominant power of the world. With the final goal to surpas the US navy.

Give the PLAN two more decads and I think they will reach that goal.
Wall83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010   #29
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall83 View Post
I doubt China wants to start any war. They just want to be the dominant naval power in the region and at the end the dominant power of the world. With the final goal to surpas the US navy.

Give the PLAN two more decads and I think they will reach that goal.
I think it is unlikely China is going to be able to challenge the USN or for that matter want to this century. Although the basis of sea power is the wealth of a nation (the decline of RN a good example) there has to be an intent. Wanting a blue water capability does not mean it is planning to challenge the USN.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010   #30
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall83 View Post
I doubt China wants to start any war. They just want to be the dominant naval power in the region and at the end the dominant power of the world. With the final goal to surpas the US navy.

Give the PLAN two more decads and I think they will reach that goal.
If the political powers in Washington allow it, it can happen, if the political powers in Washington don’t, it won’t. It is not a matter of what the US can do, but what it decides it is necessary to do. Please note, I did not say preemptive strike.

Think of the naval arms race between the UK and pre world War One Germany.

The idea that China can carve out a sphere of influence because of its size, population and economic/ military power is an old and out dated idea. A sphere of influence was in the past, the quest to call all the shots where everyone dose what they are tolled to do is not realistic. China cannot even control North Korea for God’s sake, who are they kidding? First it neighbor’s won’t stand for it, and they are not helpless. If the US did decided to withdraw from the area (very unlikely) like the Chinese think they want, everybody and their mother would be hell bent on getting their own nuclear weapons.

But more importantly, the US is a pacific power, it has more cost line on the Pacific Ocean than China dose and it is not going away.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 PM.