Please consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/EurasiaNavalinsight Alternatively, you could visit my Buy Me A Coffee page: www.buymeacoffee.com/navalinsight For more videos on PLAN analysis, see here: Projection of Chinese Navy in 2035: ruclips.net/video/T5lJ1FPtbGA/видео.html Will the Type 004 Carrier be Nuclear Powered? ruclips.net/video/ceQ25_vGD0Y/видео.html
I think one other factor that is often overlooked when comparing the number of ships is that the US fleet is spread out over essentially the whole world, while the chinese fleet is concentrated in waters near China.
In case of war the US navy will be mobilized. Not to mention that the US navy will also not be alone. Countries like Japan, Australia and UK will support the US in the defense of Taiwan. On top of other other countries like those from NATO, S. Korea and India are very likely to join as well. And to be honest the naval superiority question will be answered in the very beginning of the war when the first vollies start.
The biggest advantage of China naval force is the ship-building capabilities in China. In wartime, China can probably build 50 055 class destroyers in a year, while other countries simply do not have that capability.
@@Hmonks China has over 3000+ shipbuilding yards, -- 529 shipyards are capable of building ship of 10,000+ tons above -- 56 capable of building 100,000+ tons above ships --30 capable of building 300,000+ tons above ships -And 6 Super shipyards capable of building half a million tons vessels(!!) All can produce warships in a week. Every year China builds thousands of various kinds of new ships. China ship building industry produces over HALF the entire world ship production by tonnage.
Thank you Eurasia Naval Insight, I found this to be very educational and enlightening to see instead of the propaganda you normally see from other channels or indian comments that immediately discount all of China's ability as just ships that would fall apart. You can see that China never expected to be a superpower next year, but with it's compound growth mentality, it will build to ultimately defend it's zone indefinitely. May China be successful in their future endeavors.
When I read the news title earlier that "China will initially complete the modernization of its national defense in 2035", I was surprised and expected to see a larger navy and hope for world peace. [As a young military fan, I remember that when the first 052D was put into service, I was excited for several days. I didn't expect that so many have been built now]
Nice video as always. BTW, I think PLAN also badly needs larger and faster supply ships to sail with those carrier groups. It might be a good idea to develop such ships based on the same frame of type 075 with a flying deck.
As an update of the number of the Type-056A corvettes, about half the 50 China has built have been transferred to the Chinese coast guards after removing the missile launchers. The crews of these war shipsw may be transferred to Type 054As and Type 052DLs under construction.
A very good presentation on the advances of the Chinese navy. The one point not really considered when comparing against the US Navy is the US navy is coupled to five oceans and is not able to bring its full force to bear against China for fear of attacks on its vast world wide defence bases if it did so. Another point in favour of China is it’s massive open ocean fishing trawler fleet, which can supply thousands of sailers with vast experience capable of quick commissioning into officer positions if required. Something the USA no longer has as it struggles to recruit for its navel forces.
There is only one navy in the world and if they needed to concentrate , they could because there are no other navies in the world except the United States.
To compensate the weakness & small number of the Chinese SSN, PLAN has a large number of Type 039A AIP SSK & latest variants, these AIP boats could very stealthy & therefore very deadly to any enemy fleet.
The strategic missions of the USN and PLAN are different. You briefly touched upon it, but the different missions dictates the different compositions of the two navies. And the biggest advantage of a nuclear powered ballistic missile sub is not the speed, but the fact that it does not need to surface during its entire patrol.
Hi I've been following you for a while now on your channel and I wanted to ask if you could do a video on US naval procurement from 2030 and beyond similar to the one you did on China a while back either here or on your other channel Naval enthusiast, it'll also be nice if you could touch on the US navy's current 30 year ship building plan. Thank you.
Not having nuclearpowered submarines is not by itself a weakness. Not having them if you require longrange submarine patrols, YES, then it's a weakness. But China isn't trying to rule the Atlantic or the S.E. Pacific, or for that matter, ALL the oceans. It is questionable how much they really need them. Especially nowadays when various AIP solutions have shown to be extremely effective. The Gotland never failing against a USN carrier task force, to "sink" the carrier during exercises, nor ever being "sunk" itself, that was a very blatant showing of just how dangerous conventional subs can be. . The quality issue is also going to be less of a problem soon-ish, because of how USA/Nato/EU has pushed China and Russia into a de facto alliance, i started hearing rumors about negoitations between them about submarine and ASW technology ever since summer. And while Russia isn't a naval focused nation, it still has some pretty darn good stuff.
Glad you mentioned Gotland. The USN rented the sub and crew after the incident. Transported back to the US. No one knows what countermeasures were developed for such a quiet unimposing sub. I would assume that this was pursued big time. They had it for a couple of years, good to have been tactically sunk though and find that out.
@@tutu88524 Uh, no, they have two old Type 091, six Type 093 AND five or six Type 094. And regardless, what does it matter? Nuclear submarines are comparatively big noisy targets, no matter how useful their greater strategic speed and endurance is. If the aim of a nation is to attack others far away from home, nuclear submarines have an advantage. If your primary mission is defense of the homeland, non-nuclear has some major advantages.
China's weakness is it grew too fast ecomically, faster than its tech could keep up with. So it had to do many stop gap measures in the meantime, like procuring diesel subs or ski ramp carriers. Also China prioritised defending its shores first, so it doesn't need nuclear subs except as second strike capability in nuclear war, and 8 is enough for that, or at least for now. Within the next 10-30 years however, China will transition into a full blown blue water navy, and will be able to match or exceed USA militarily and technologically. I have no doubt about that. That is China's own stated timeline. To have a world class military by 2050. Aka be able to go toe to toe with USA in anything and everything. China's biggest weakness however is its lack of overseas bases. It doesn't matter if you have nuclear subs, you still need to replenish food and water supplies from friendly countries or your overseas bases. And based on what I've seen, China has been working on that. I predict some overseas bases in South America, and maybe another one in west coast of Africa, and some in pacific island as has been reported in the news like Solomon Islands. China needs to sign some agreements and be able to use those ports to counter USA and west, otherwise China will forever be vulnerable to blockades and other shenanigans. China cannot attack and make an enemy of every country USAs has bases in, so China will need to use diplomacy and its economic might to make those countries guarantee China the same access and also make those countries be neutral in any USA vs China war. Of course, the most important is to ramp up China's nuclear stockpile to deter such war from every happening, and if it does happen, at least China will have the firepower to take on the world and destroy it if need be. And China has been doing that, they will have 1000 nukes by end of the decade probably. The only reason no one ever talks about attacking Russia or even blockading Russian exports etc is becsuse Russia has that many nukes. China needs to do the same ASAP and put an end to talks of "defending Taiwan" or "blocking malacca straight " once and for all.
While I agree with most if not all you said, things need time and patience to build, nothing happen overnight. You can't have a oversea base without blue water navy. You can't have a blue water navy without a way to defend your land first.
In my opinion, the first thing Mao ensured and prioritized was PLA's nuclear capabilities along with their conventional land warfare at the time. I think that's what any sensible person would have done. Don't believe western militarial propaganda of their self ego inflating with saying China only has 300 nukes. They most likely have well beyond 1000 by now lol
@@GoldenKhanate06 yeap, we all know those countries without nuke are the first to go or political change. The US don't want countries with nuke to have political because they don't want lost nuke which is extremely dangerous. I'm so glad China choose nuke, although the US place sanctions on China and cause the great leap forward (China either try and die OR just sitting around waiting to die due to sanctions)
China is not like the US, China is after a win-win situation. see the difference between China and US's foreign policy in the Middle East and Africa . The US wants hegemony, China is an exchange. So far China has only one overseas base, and it's only a supply depot, not a garrison,for use against pirates off Somalia. China will never need overseas military bases.
The US has a special class of nuclear powered submarines, the Ohio class SSGNs which can carry upto 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Tomahawks were quietly upgraded to block V standard which can be used to strike against land targets or ships. A single Ohio class SSGN can potentially fire a massive salvo of 154 sea skimming Tomahawks against an enemy carrier battle group from a safe distance. The PLAN fleets needs more effective airborne early warning capability than the Ka-31s to counter this kind of threat.
Tomahawks are land attack missiles. The ship attack version was discontinued a long time ago. They are too large and too slow to be effective in that role.
@@xsu-is7vq They were all upgraded to Block V with new sensors and navigation for their maritime strike roles. They are long range missile with very large warheads which hide from shipborne radars until the terminal phase by hugging the sea surface. They can also loitor to wait for other missiles in order to hit the target all at the same time. So a large salvo will not be easy to defend.
Submarines are the biggest threat to any country, but the American Tomahawk is a short-range surface-launched missile. If a submarine turns on its biosensor to search for Chinese warships underwater, it will inevitably be captured by the anti-sonar of Chinese warships. , so Chinese warships can defend against incoming missiles in advance. At the same time, it can also attack submarines. Submarines are used as a strategic nuclear deterrent, not to attack surface ships.
But you may not know that China's long-range nuclear weapons cannot be intercepted by the United States. And China's interception technology is the most advanced in the world, capable of intercepting all strategic missiles of the United States.
Although the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, why don't American aircraft carriers dare to enter the South China Sea? Because the strike distance of China's anti-ship missiles far exceeds the strike radius of the aircraft carrier.
A huge weakness of American ships is their prices. When the Chinese put $1 billion on the table, they have a Type 055 destroyer. In the US, that's a third of a Burke destroyer. And the Burke is not especially superior. It's just that in the US military-industrial complex, charging $500 for a box of 40 bolts is standard.
You raise a pertinent point. It is easy to be 'awed' by the absolute nominal value of the US defense budget, but the extent it contribute to increases in the stock of capability needs to be adjusted for PPP and maintenance of existing equipment, and so on.
Doing business in the US is more expensive. Workers are treated and paid better which naturally increases costs. That said, I don't think money will be as big of an issue. US defense spending is less than Russia as a % of GDP. The US economy is still #1 and growing. In fact, during the 80s the US spent over 6% of its GDP on defense compared to 3.5% in 2021. There is a LOT of room for US Defense Spending to grow.
@@FloofyMinari Compared to Russia yes. But I think we all understand that the number 1 adversary of the USA is no longer Russia. And China has incredible financial reserves, it is not a debt industry ready to explode like the western world in 2008.
It seems to me that China is beginning to shift from a shore defence/A2AD strategy towards one aimed at global power projection, since that is ultimately what aircraft carriers and SSNs are used for. I think this suggests that the PLAN are broadly confident in their ability to defend Chinese waters (and those that China claims) from a US intervention. Let's hope we never have to find out whether that confidence is well-founded or not.
I agree. China's timeline is to have world class militsry by 2050, and we are beginning to see the first signs of that. China is starting to sign more agreements for overseas bases and using other countries ports(exclusively or shared lol). See Solomon Islands, naval base in Cambodia, etc, I predict base in South America and another one in west African coast. And of course one in Pakistan. But China doesn't want to do that just yet since it will upset India and also make China look bad, but in the long run it will have to. Otherwise it will be at a huge disadvantage if war does break out. Logistics is basically everything.
@@ex0duzz I think those are fairly solid predictions, especially since we've seen very real talks about setting up a PLAN base in Argentina. In West Africa, China already has a military base in Equatorial Guinea, so might expand there, but given how important the Senegalese port of Dakar is to Belt and Road could set up a base further north, perhaps in the Gambia in keeping with their current pattern of building bases in smaller African countries.
One often overlooked difference between Chinese Navy and US Navy is while Chinese Navy is mainly built to defends its own territory, the Us Navy has to serve as a reinforcement of the US world dominance. This means as Chinese navy is mainly deployed along the coast of China, while the U.S. Navy needs to be deployed scattered around the world. This makes it easier for the Chinese navy to get a scale advantage over the US navy in the Western Pacific region.
China does not have advantage over US in western Pacific region because US navy have bases in Japan, Korea and Philippines. Couple of the carriers are docked in korea or japan. In Hawaii and Guam navy base.
@@coolsoenie I did not say that the Chinese navy already has any advantage now. However, it should be noted that the Chinese navy does not need to be able to defeat the U.S. Navy in the Western Pacific. As long as they can ensure that the U.S. Navy pays a heavy price, it will deter the U.S. Navy from intervening in the Taiwan conflict.
@@金翰飞 I think China needs strike first at all USA bases that is nearby China and the ones have carrier's in Pacific Ocean. Otherwise USA strikes back with their allies.
@@coolsoenie It will be a quite tricky choice. Although China can certainly wipe out all US bases nearby with our massive stock of various missiles, however it would be rather stupid to make such an aggressive move and give US a perfect excuse to interfere Taiwan issue which is legally speaking a domestic matter since Tiwan is not a sovereign state. I think the best move for China is to keep building an armed force that is nearly as strong as the U.S. military in the Pacific， then the US will have to think twice before sending force to fight us when it's not absolute necessary. And by the time US came up with a decision, we will have already taken Tiwan since it's not a very big island for an army which is almost as strong as the US army.
@@coolsoeniehaving bases surrounding China and having equal amount of deployable force that is comparable to Chinese deployable force are not the same thing. US may match China on numbers, But US has far more frontiers to think about. And it is the Chinese threat that ultimately provoked US to limit its involvements in Gulf, and Afghanistan. Freeing up assets. Furthermore unlike NATO in Europe, Taiwan Korea and Japan does not have a unified and collaborative military structure. Which poses a big question regarding their reliability in a coordinated effort.
Compared to the US fleet, the Chinese ships are built in recent years and therefore much newer; also it has allowed China to apply newer technologies to those ships. Many of the US ships are or about to retire
Yes. Unfortunately the US has been busy defending the world from Terrorists and sadly the Navy didn't receive as much attention. I think the US navy's future is bright. More and more politicians and international allies are seeing the threat of China. We have a few upcoming projects that can definitely give us a technology edge.
If I were the US, I would hold off the retirement of the Ticonderoga cruisers by 10-15 years. Those cruisers are arguably the best anti-ballistic missile defense ships in the world, and with China employing the new YJ 21 anti ship ballistic missile, the US is going to need every ballistic missile defense capability they can. Plus the Ticonderoga is still one hell of a air defense platform. The Arleigh burkes are so weighed down physically and systematically and with not enough pure radar power that they would only be mediocre at anti-ballistic missile defense at best. Russia or China could even consider nuclear strikes if either country gets super invested in Ukraine or Taiwan. Until global security is more assured, I would keep the Ticonderoga around a while longer
Being built later does not make it more advanced. American weapons that were retired 50 years ago stopped russias newest weapons dead in their tracks. It will be similar with naval warfare.
@@jaredevans8263 I agree I love the Ticos, but the flight 3 Burke's are getting new SPY-6 radar, which is better than what's in the Ticos. Even the flight 2s and under are being retrofitted with smaller versions of SPY-6
@jpierce2l33t yeah I get they getting retrofitted, but the Ticonderoga has more radar power output (more ship power to radar systems) and more space for radar equipment. I don't get how the burkes can be upgraded yet again after being so weighed down systematically
One thing for sure, these ships are more capable than the ones it replaces and chinese fleet are the largest in the world. They have improved on qualities and quantities. She has not stop on growing.
I wonder why China is limiting its WARSHIP building ability by 10x? Not to scare off the world? China has over 3000+ shipbuilding yards, -- 529 shipyards are capable of building ship of 10,000+ tons above -- 56 capable of building 100,000+ tons above ships --30 capable of building 300,000+ tons above ships -And 6 Super shipyards capable of building half a million tons vessels(!!) All can produce warships in a week. Every year China builds thousands of various kinds of new ships. China ship building industry produces over half of the entire world ship production by tonnage.
It's a balance act of building economy first vs percentage to build warship. We are in a somewhat peaceful time so it's not priority. Having a strong economy and improving the livelihood of the people is better than having all those warship laying around. China just need enough to defend it region. It's not looking for world domination like the US is. Business is better than war. Everyone wins in business. War cause lots of fatherless and motherless children. The US is a war economy, causing chaos to sell weapons, hence, I believe it is 60% of each dollar is spend on the military industrial complex.
There's many reasons why a naval power in peacetime may want to limit its build-up below its maximum potential. Technology and experience is constantly improving, and this means a ship laid down today will use inferior technology and less optimised design compared to what will become available in the not-too-distant future, but the maintenance cost may not be that much different (improvement in some technology, e.g. automation, actually reduce cost). Building a large number of warships at the same time will provide less capability than if the build-up is split into several different classes and/or iterations over a number of years. Building excessively above growth in the economy and by association tax receipts will mean a lower proportion of the military budget can go into developing new technology, and procuring better ships in the future. This is to say nothing of the need to train personnel to man the new equipment, and to build the bases to service these assets, and the diplomatic and geostrategic repercussions of a sharp build-up (as you alluded to). I will say though historically countries have been willing to start building large naval assets without having the optimal mix of technology ready, compared to army and air assets. This is because of the long construction time for naval capital units relative to land and air units. It is also why historically nations do not build more than a few units of a given ship class, before moving on to the successor design.
@@EurasiaNaval I like to add, when building ships with newer tech, it's always better to build slowly (especially in peace time) so you can find out any weaknesses and where things could improve and implemented the changes to newer one. Basically building on the foundations of previous generations . That is our mindset as Chinese, we implemented the good and remove the bad, one could see it in Chinese government. It combines all the good type of each governance and rem9ve the bad part; hence China is combinations of communist, democracy, socialist, etc.
Question is, why China need warships as a continental power? Unlike US island countries, it need warship secure its water path while China can directly ship on land. I dont think it is very necessary for China to over waste money on unnecessary warships.
Regarding sea based anti-ballistic capability, a few weeks ago I saw videos saying the HQ-26 was tested by a weapon test ship, meaning it could be equipped by the 055s soon. As of the Chinese Navy weakness, I think it will most likely to be the software, not hardware. Ships and aircrafts are relatively easy and quick to build, while crews and pilots are harder and take much longer. The US has a very early head start and lots of battle hardened men, while China is lacking in both areas. More UAVs and automation may mitigate but there will still be quite some catch up for PLAN to do.
I wouldn't overstate the "battle hardened men" of the US armed forces. They haven't been in a high intensity conflict for decades. In the case of a war between China and the US, I doubt either side would have much of an advantage in terms of experience.
@@mirror452 That has some element of truth but a fact is China has no real world experience in neither surface(arguable, minesweepers) nor under water battles. Many bugs are ironed out only after being spotted in real world uses and lessons are learned at cost of lives. Of course you have the US sub crews that wrecked a seawolf sub simply by sailing but given the sheer amount of actual US Navy activities around the globe I'd still say US has a big advantage.
The analysis of China's naval strength is still very accurate and more reasonable than most conceited Westerners.. Although the number of military aircraft of Liaoning and Shandong warships is not equal to that of the United States, the capability of China's aircraft carrier battle group, which is composed of destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines, is relatively not behind that of the United States. The aircraft of Liaoning warships provide air defense security for the fleet, while the supersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles have an ultra-long attack range, It will make the aircrafts of the US aircraft carrier combat group unable to reach the appropriate attack range... In 10 years, China will have two 003 or 004 aircraft carrier battle groups.. With the Liaoning and Shandong warships, in the western Pacific, the US military will completely lose its leading ability.. Exit the third island chain.. The Chinese navy still needs constant practice. It can go to Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, and other places in the United States for long-distance training... If there is a war in the future, the battlefield cannot be all at the door of China. We must let the enemy country's own land have military pressure... Only in this way can we stop the war ambitions of these crazy people who launched many wars with the slogan of freedom and democracy
Oh no buddy it is relatively decades behind the US. The American carrier battle group is bigger, has more missiles and more advanced ships as well. Better destroyers, better submarines, better radars, better missiles, better aircraft like the US already have 5th gen fighters in their navy and while the Chinese are still trying to put their 5th gen fighters America is already developing their 6th gen fighter. China is trying to catch up but currently America is not stopping!
@@lishen9 The US navy has around 10,000 missile cells compared to around 3,300 for China - article from Forbes 2021. Most numerous Chinese destroyer is the Type 052D which is smaller and has less firepower. I think better submarines it is not all that hard to explain you can even re-watch this vide where he ssays that China lacks in submarines numbers and technology. F-18 super hornets and F-35 Lightning are a lot better than the Soviet-designed J-15s. There is not even a point of comparison. F/A - XX is waay underway! Anything about the Chinese 6th gen fighter?
Ships / hardware/ tech = Def powerful navy. However, The hearts and the minds of the Soldiers who operate them determine if that Dragon Breathes Fire or is made of Paper.
When the United States and Britain became world hegemons, they were both the first industrial powers at that time. Don't underestimate the productivity of industrial powers
3 questions; What is the actual level of training of the PLNA in terms of quality? 2; What are their fuel reserves incase of war; e.g., do they have enough reserves incase the Straights of Hurmuz and Malacca get shut down? 3, What impact will projections of their declining work force have on their naval building program?
The PRC have a much more capable surface force than they get credit for, IMO, they would be formidable! Though they’re at least decades behind the US when it comes to subsurface and overall joint doctrine capabilities.
Superior joint-maneuver logistics is a major advantage for US and NATO, and that has come from decades of experience, even if it mostly hasn't been near peer.
Also a large quantity of smaller warship allows for greater command level experience and training of officers as well as vetting that can be moved into larger ship if and when the need arises. War ships are only as good as the men manning them.
Another great video! Having watched several videos on the PLA and the PLAN, I believe the personnel are much more motivated to defend their Motherland than the USN personnel are in their aggressor role. Remember what happened with the crew of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea when she was buzzed by a Russian Su-24 that fried much of her electronics? One other point to consider, does China have a close enough relationship with Russia that she can rely on the Russian Navy SSN's to supplement her surface fleet whilst she catches up? Just wondering.
Both are true. When the British and French ruled the seas pirates and naval warfare was rampant and in the Soviet Union controlled seas trade was severely limited until the USN was there to aid. Because of the open oceans (due to the USN) globalization has been able to happen. So o would not say you’re wrong by you’re coming at it from a biased perspective.
@@leexingha in most modern naval and merchant mariners books they cite sources of anti drug anti piracy and anti terrorism threats on the ocean that is mitigated by the USN. several sources back up my claim. That’s not being biased that’s being true.
@@seanpruitt6801 let me give u a simple logic - u dont nid a carrier group task force just to mitigate drugs & piracy. u can just simply sell naval equip to those countries who were suppose to deal the problem in their respective backyard. or rather than throwing flames in Rus-Ukr war, ur warmonger country could just simply give them to some very poor country plagued with illegal water activites
Type 003 is supposed to have that we know. However it being operational and capable of simultaneous launches has not been determined or confirmed as far as I can tell (like to see it function, same as CVN 78)... Not saying it won't work but once it's in action that will change opinions including mine.
China has tested the pure kinetic railgun on an amphibious warship a few years ago (can't remember exactly when, but it was fairly recent), but nothing operationalised, as you say.
China from time immemorial have a sailing tradition. Its ships sailed all over asia. In terms of modern navy ships, it fell asleep in the 19th century but it is now has a very strong and getting stronger by the day. Sailing instincts will always be found in many Chinese. The Chinese are now not too far behind over probably is ahead now in terms of technology and warplay is not too far behind.
Ballistic missiles aren't as big of a threat to the Chinese navy as it is to Western navies. Neither Japan nor Australia have ballistic missiles. The US' silos are all on the continent; they have no intermediate ranged ballistic missiles, certainly none that can hit a ship at sea. The US Navy is also stuck with a crappy anti-ship missile, the subsonic Harpoon II. If the Chinese DDGs can intercept supersonic jets, they should have no issue with a much slower Harpoon II.
What do you mean US silos are all on the continent? The biggest chunk of the US nuclear triad is in their submarines. The US navy is stuck with "crappy anti-ship missile"? Like the SM-6 missile? Oh didn't know that the SM-6 missile subsonic. Maybe mach 3.5 is subsonic speed?
@@ulikemyname6744 the SM-6 is not designed with anti-ship capability in mind as the priority function. Besides the use of it will be reserved heavy on air defense and it is still far behind in terms of anti-ship capability comparing to the Chinese YJ-21 and other land based and air launched hypersonic anti-ship missiles, like the one seen on the H-6K bomber and the DF-21
@@dengist8172 Carriers are only good against enemies without anti-ship hypersonic missiles. Probably very efficient against Iraq, Afghanistan and similar countries..
@@BSnicks Hypeesonic missiles are not everything, carriers will always be nessisary due to need for naval aviation. And it is most likely not as capable of sinking carriers as they are advertised, I mainly see them as a deterrent rather than an effective weapon.
With the fast improvement in battery technology, non nuclear submarines are looking better and better. Its definitely more quiet and much cheaper to built and maintain. Numbers due matter.
I am often skeptical of the Chinese "stated" capabilities (biased of coarse). Does the equipment function as stated? When was the last time China engaged in naval wartime engagements? Meaning do their ship captains and admirals really know how to conduct naval warfare? We are seeing how Russia has been reduced by complacency after soviet union ended, while Ukraine has improved (with help). I think we will know the answers to these questions in a few short years (or sooner).
How do you know the U.S. capabilities are stated. How do you know they UNDERSTATED. That’s how propaganda gets you. You do realize when both British and US became a naval power, neither had naval engagements before.
Yeah and they tried to fight an all out oceanwide Pacific war against the United States while their economy was on life support and 3 quarters of their Army was fighting in China and South East Asia. Not only that but they struck American soil which ensured full American support of the war whereas otherwise American intervention would have been limited by public unwillingness to fight a war in Asia without having been attacked. Add on top of that the fact that they were cartoonisly evil and fed the American propaganda machine with real War Crimes more heinous than any American propagandist could even invent. They played their cards as poorly as they could have. By January of 1942 they had already lost the war. China will not make these mistakes. They will not attack US soil. They will not attack the territory of any of its legitimate neighbours. They will urge everyone to remain neutral in case of an invasion of Taiwan and they will make sure that by that time they have the military strength to make anyone think twice about joining a war for Taiwan on the side of America. They will not try to fight a Pacific war but will have all of their ships operate in their national waters in range of their shore missiles, drone swarms and aircraft. So, completely different scenario.
China is growing, but I think the US can maintain their superiority if congress pays more attention and gives more resources to the Navy. We need to replace our Ticos and aging flight 1 Burkes. Hopefully we can get DDGX moving faster and refit our Zumwalts. On a good note, the Air Force NGAD 6th Genration aircraft seems to be making impressive progress and I can imagine the FA-XX is close behind. Coupled with the B-21 I think we can safely assume the Air Force will play a bigger role in the Pacific than we thought. By the time the J35 is in production the US will already be ahead with their 6th Gen aircraft. Let's not forget the new Hypersonic Missiles being developed.
Chinese being step ahead in terms of naval surface warfare offensive capabilities is a bit questionable though, only as of now. Because most of American fleet offensive capabilities are demonstrated by carrier based strike aircrafts. Ships primarily serve a purpose of anti-submarine and anti-air screen in conjunction with carrier-based CAP and ASW assets. That being said, China is certainly, slowly but steadily moving towards the US doctrine of carrier-based air power being the primary provider of fleet offensive capabilities.
Chinese radars are not on par with the older Spy-1 and certainly not with Spy-6. Plus there are 5th gen F-35s and distributed battlefield integration. Chinese should also train for amphibious warfare. They should develop high quality electro-optical systems and infrared imaging cameras to defeat stealth craft. TB-2 Bayraktar type small but highly effective MALEs are needed. Quiter nuclear submarines and more... China does not need to match U.S. step by step. They should outsmart them with asymmetrical technologies and doctrines like Turkish military. Aside from the submarines I don't see any hints that Chinese understanding the finer points of force projection.
It's not just building their own nuclear subs and carrier aviation. Its also the coordination on how to use it for strategic and tactical purposes. China is relatively inexperienced and will take years for them to know how to use them properly in a war situation.
The idea that your opponent, for no reason at all, somehow don't know how to use their forces, is a recurring theme for declining empires in history, and always end in their collapse. This mentality is indicative of the point of no return in an empire's terminal decline.
@@janusjones6519 Oh it had a lot of impact especially in the early stages of the war. Good thing about the US military is that they had naval-heavy doctrine. Another good thing is that unlike the Japanese America was heavy on its air force as well. They were early to realize how effective their air force could be on the filed of battle and sea. The Japanese were not so heavily invested into the their air force despite having so many carriers in the beginning of the war. America was one of the fiest nations to invest heavily in that field and by the end of the war that was visible having built 99 carriers 28 of which being big. Still the US had some problems with inexperienced people in the beginning. And yet it is not all that simple because inexperienced soldier back then wasn't that big of a deal as it is right now. Today's war is surgical and requires a lot of experienced people in many many fields.
Don't underestimate the Chinese navy. They have the world's second largest fleet of surface warships, and they have the world's largest shipbuilding capabilities. The best way to deal with the Chinese navy is to escalate their internal conflicts
With tomahawks block v rolling out with a 1000mi+ range vs the 300mi of the YJ-18 and 900+ mi of the YJ-21 which is only on the few 055s China has, I very much doubt that the surface vessels will have many opportunities to shoot at each other. A single Ohio with its 157 tomahawks will be a regional threat to any Chinese surface vessels. Not to mention that even the old and numerous improved LA class subs the US has stacks 12 tomahawks. I don’t think the naval powers will be shooting at each other much, if previous US strategies are of any precedence, they will try and attrit the Chinese surface fleets with waves of attacks launched from aircraft or subs until it’s safe to send in forces that are capable of overwhelming under strength positions and using intel, precision and range to surgically diminish threats before they can regroup.
I'm a USN vet. The US is capable but cost and industry ability are not what they used to be. Only New Port News builds the CVNs. Means limited capacity and build time even with super lift is long. R&D and all involved is Hugh right down to congress involvement etc. Slows development and procurement. USA is can do, but looks like the PRC is getting there as well. Never underestimate an adversary or competitor, you'll get bit. Believe that's called arrogance!
Is there any sense of construction quality of PLAN ships? I know the USN had the loss of the USS Thresher to influence the passage of SUBSAFE laws to help ensure high quality construction.
No they just spend billions of dollars building junk with absolutely no quality control. Walmart is filled with cheap plastic made in China junk because that’s what the supply and demand wants not because that’s all they can make. At least not in 2023.
Without hypersonic antiship missiles, it would take a lot more than just a few jets. The rather large AESA array is often not given it's due weight by a lot of amateur analysts. Early detection is so important for defense, as much or more so than the actual antiair/antimissile weapons. Actual performance of Chinese destroyers will be significantly higher than our own ships without AESA. Of course, our ships often operate within aircraft carrier battlegroups with fixed wing AWACS, mitigating this issue. 2 out of 3 Chinese carriers have no catapult, which means only less effective helicopter AWACS. Although most Chinese ships operate close to home, within range of bigger and more effective full sized AWACS. So... It's complicated. But to answer your question, no, a couple of fighters without hypersonic missile won't be enough to get a hit in, mainly because due to their far more effective onboard radar, you can't really catch Chinese destroyers with its pants down like you can if one of ours was caught alone and unsupported.
China banks on large surface ships while lacking on capability on sub surface area, is a disaster in a makings! The US navy operates huge amounts of submarines, and giving that china has practically no experience and capability about submarine warfare? Is mockery of their navy! Furthermore? Chinas military branches operates separately compare to the US combined command! 😂 the US will have a field day sinking all those ships to the bottom of the ocean in no time! And they will do it in short distances, within the proximity of first island chain..
@@mshieh70 .. Communist PLA, CCP take on whom.. The peaceful religious people of Tibet.. or Vietnam and smaller islands of the coast of Philippines, Vietnam and other Countries…
@@isayusayweallcansayif so then why wait. USA have been sailing up and down like a fool since 2016 in south china sea. Yet invades weak countries like Iraq and afghan within weeks...
With the 21st Century technologies, ships or even planes could be just "toys" to awe the general public. Wouldn't the real war be engaged through hypersonic missiles all over the sky? With advanced satellites, maybe even the older missiles could be "misled" into self-destruction? Let us all hope that such scenario can prevent any futile engagement among nations!!
Others can say what they like. It is understandable they are all jealous of a sudden surging forward of the PLN which the existing powers dont like, while those that suddenly found themselves left far behind are not pleased about too.
I mean in this day and age there's no tonnage that you can give a warship which will prevent it from being sunk by a swarm of drones and hypersonic maneuver missiles. For China's goal, which regional power projection, they want to have a navy large enough to not be able to be sunk by a few concentrated strikes even if they do go through. Besides, they only need a few aircraft carriers since they can rely on mainland airbases for most of their needs. Again, they don't need to be able to fight a war 30,000km from their shores, they are not America
Imagine China unexpectedly goes on a building spree suddenly cranking out hundreds of ships as if they were preparing for war. What is the US going to do? START the war before those ships are completed and sailors trained for them? Would that not make the US the bad guys? China is only building ships. They could say they're modernising and replacing old ships, and then never get rid of the "old" ships (all of which are still newer than most of the US fleet). They could spread false rumours about the old ships having some critical flaw. It wouldn't be difficult to paint cracks on some of the ships and leak the photo to make the rumour more believable. Alternatively, the US could start building more yards and training workers, and before the new yards are half done and any work on any new ship even started, China has completed all their ships and started on batch #2. Remember why Japan lost WW2. It was not because the US had better naval planes and ships. Took a while for the US to get cranking. If it is China that decides they want a war, they would first put their enormous industrial capacity to cranking out war materials, and dare the US to start the war. The US would be in this awful dillema. If it starts the war, its allies wouldn't follow. If it is the US that decides to start the war, it can try to damage China's factories and shipyards, but it would lose a lot of planes and perhaps a good chunk of its navy doing this. And again, being the aggressor, it will have to fight a distant war alone without allies. And China could of course rebuild. If the US does nothing, China continues to increase its industrial capacity leaving the US behind.
Didn't Chinese submarines follow and Track a UK carrier groups about 2 years ago...however the whole time a UK submarine followed and tracked the Chinese subs without them knowing - as the Brits left the area they contacted the Chinese (who thought they were invisible to the Brits) to say goodby😂😂 The Brits, France and USA are about 15 years ahead of China in top line military technology.
The Chinese can already build confused, pointless death traps for much cheaper. They sell them to us daily on Amazon and AliExpress. They don't need to spend billions on a flawed design that kills an entire crew once every year or two.
China should remove the Midrange Missles for AA. Only two types are required in warfare. Long Range if your detection equipment is good enough to see the USA's 9th Gen Aircraft. and Short Range for more agile aircraft and smaller targets. There are Rumors that within 10 years, the Threat of Nuclear Winter will be nullified as they are close to creation of a device that projects a field that nullifies Nuclear Fusion. Meaning if Fusion can take place, No Nuke in that area can explode. Honestly Scared of what's gonna happen when USA is the only Country capable of useing Nukes. The balance of Power thats kept realitive peace, will be gone. USA can basically bully even China then and what can China do? Get Nuked? USA will be Immune.
In actual combat America simply by the location of their military, navy, army, Airforce. Over 800 military bases world wide. 100% support from NATO and many very powerful nations.
China is doing the right thing... make adversaries think... "too big to fight". How many countries would want a direct war with China? How long before long range weapons will be used directly on to land? So many comments here, this guy will jump in and that guy will jump in - lol!
China can fight smaller Asian countries, but its military is not war tested. Since it's not war tested, there are many defects that may render it fatal for China.
China is making it's own way. All nationalists should support patriots of other nations. Though I hate communism and attack against the church I am glad to see China become mighty again like of old. During the warring states period and time of a thousand scholars. Awesome stuff. Btw I understand it is complex as sadly many missionary groups and supposedly Christian NGOs have been havens of subversion. The need to oust these kinds of outfits is all too necessary. They do great harm to the church.
Any self respecting commander of PLAN will not lose out to 15th century ming dynasty fleet of 328 ships crewed by 28,000 sailors sailing from china to persian gulf under admiral zhanghe
This is nothing but made in China ship. I remember few years ago, when made in China car was tested in Switzerland and everything just fell apart. When they interviewed the CEO of the company, he said that the car was built for a driver to drive it carefully. China's over confidence will lead it to no where.
None of the PLA forces including it's navy have been tested in real modern warfare and this will put it behind the US and Russia. The last major military conflict was in 1979 against Vietnam and it took major loses for minimum gains.
Talking about navy battle, in 1974 China navy fought South Vietnam in South China Sea, it sunk two of SV's four American warships in the battle and damaged the other two. On 1979 conflict with NV, it achieved its strategic goal of destroying Vietnam's industry infrastructure in the north and keeping it at bay from helping Soviet to circle China. Also close to one million China army stationed in northern China waiting for the Soviet but they never showed up as they promised to their Vietnamese ally that they would. So here is what's likely going to happen, China and US both being nuclear power may not go head to head directly, but any other smaller country or countries (like Japan or Australia) if helping US in a conflict with China will likely be the first to be crushed like what happened 40 years ago when Vietnam was trying to help Soviet to circle China.
The Soviets/Russian federation may have been stealing western tech but at least they always had a different look to ship designs, I can respect that. The CCP builds copies, steals, and borrows designs but there is no difference to western designs? Why is that? Could it be the CCP decided to take the best or both the Russians and western world instead of doing something original.
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/EurasiaNavalinsight
Alternatively, you could visit my Buy Me A Coffee page: www.buymeacoffee.com/navalinsight
For more videos on PLAN analysis, see here:
Projection of Chinese Navy in 2035: ruclips.net/video/T5lJ1FPtbGA/видео.html
Will the Type 004 Carrier be Nuclear Powered? ruclips.net/video/ceQ25_vGD0Y/видео.html
Great video mate, the best English language channel on Chinese navy on RUclips. By far.
You will like i go to sleep to your playlists , it works sweet knowledge till snooze
Long range Super Sonic Anti-ship Missiles is where its at. No Ones Carriers will last long.
Fantastic video! Very few channels of this quality level exist on youtube.
Your wasting your time. Propaganda Channel.
I think one other factor that is often overlooked when comparing the number of ships is that the US fleet is spread out over essentially the whole world, while the chinese fleet is concentrated in waters near China.
In case of war the US navy will be mobilized. Not to mention that the US navy will also not be alone. Countries like Japan, Australia and UK will support the US in the defense of Taiwan. On top of other other countries like those from NATO, S. Korea and India are very likely to join as well. And to be honest the naval superiority question will be answered in the very beginning of the war when the first vollies start.
@@ulikemyname6744 Yes, just like how they strongly supported Ukraine.
@@ulikemyname6744 I wouldn't be so sure about all those wild assertions if I were you.
@@russelfang7434 They are supporting Ukraine yes
@@mirror452 Why tho?
The biggest advantage of China naval force is the ship-building capabilities in China. In wartime, China can probably build 50 055 class destroyers in a year, while other countries simply do not have that capability.
Yeah Goodluck with their building port. Won’t be that easy.
@@Hmonks China has over 3000+ shipbuilding yards,
-- 529 shipyards are capable of building ship of 10,000+ tons above
-- 56 capable of building 100,000+ tons above ships
--30 capable of building 300,000+ tons above ships
-And 6 Super shipyards capable of building half a million tons vessels(!!)
All can produce warships in a week.
Every year China builds thousands of various kinds of new ships.
China ship building industry produces over HALF the entire world ship production by tonnage.
@@johnsmith1953x good luck training the enlisted sailors and naval officers in any reasonable amount of time to accompany those ships being built.
@@Doomguy05816 I don't think you heard that asians are fast and smart learners.
@@johnsmith1953x 现在海军确实出现了设备等人的情况，造舰速度太快了……
Thank you Eurasia Naval Insight, I found this to be very educational and enlightening to see instead of the propaganda you normally see from other channels or indian comments that immediately discount all of China's ability as just ships that would fall apart. You can see that China never expected to be a superpower next year, but with it's compound growth mentality, it will build to ultimately defend it's zone indefinitely. May China be successful in their future endeavors.
Thanks! Glad you liked it
When I read the news title earlier that "China will initially complete the modernization of its national defense in 2035", I was surprised and expected to see a larger navy and hope for world peace.
[As a young military fan, I remember that when the first 052D was put into service, I was excited for several days. I didn't expect that so many have been built now]
现在已经052L了
Did you know they take a trip near Seattle? 😂😂😂
Nice video as always. BTW, I think PLAN also badly needs larger and faster supply ships to sail with those carrier groups. It might be a good idea to develop such ships based on the same frame of type 075 with a flying deck.
In the foreseeable future, the combat environment of the PLAN will basically be within the first island chain
Unless they can get past the first island chain, China will have no need for larger supply chains.
As an update of the number of the Type-056A corvettes, about half the 50 China has built have been transferred to the Chinese coast guards after removing the missile launchers. The crews of these war shipsw may be transferred to Type 054As and Type 052DLs under construction.
A very good presentation on the advances of the Chinese navy. The one point not really considered when comparing against the US Navy is the US navy is coupled to five oceans and is not able to bring its full force to bear against China for fear of attacks on its vast world wide defence bases if it did so.
Another point in favour of China is it’s massive open ocean fishing trawler fleet, which can supply thousands of sailers with vast experience capable of quick commissioning into officer positions if required. Something the USA no longer has as it struggles to recruit for its navel forces.
Thanks, fair comment
For combat in this present era,aerial and sea drones are the best,the more the better.
There is only one navy in the world and if they needed to concentrate , they could because there are no other navies in the world except the United States.
To compensate the weakness & small number of the Chinese SSN, PLAN has a large number of Type 039A AIP SSK & latest variants, these AIP boats could very stealthy & therefore very deadly to any enemy fleet.
yup thats why the JDSF hears them right away when leave thier submarine base...lol
@@j2koolc922 U know that is called JMSDF right? besieds, u think chinese can't hear japanese subs leaving base?
The strategic missions of the USN and PLAN are different. You briefly touched upon it, but the different missions dictates the different compositions of the two navies.
And the biggest advantage of a nuclear powered ballistic missile sub is not the speed, but the fact that it does not need to surface during its entire patrol.
Hi I've been following you for a while now on your channel and I wanted to ask if you could do a video on US naval procurement from 2030 and beyond similar to the one you did on China a while back either here or on your other channel Naval enthusiast, it'll also be nice if you could touch on the US navy's current 30 year ship building plan. Thank you.
Not having nuclearpowered submarines is not by itself a weakness. Not having them if you require longrange submarine patrols, YES, then it's a weakness.
But China isn't trying to rule the Atlantic or the S.E. Pacific, or for that matter, ALL the oceans. It is questionable how much they really need them.
Especially nowadays when various AIP solutions have shown to be extremely effective. The Gotland never failing against a USN carrier task force, to "sink" the carrier during exercises, nor ever being "sunk" itself, that was a very blatant showing of just how dangerous conventional subs can be.
.
The quality issue is also going to be less of a problem soon-ish, because of how USA/Nato/EU has pushed China and Russia into a de facto alliance, i started hearing rumors about negoitations between them about submarine and ASW technology ever since summer. And while Russia isn't a naval focused nation, it still has some pretty darn good stuff.
Glad you mentioned Gotland. The USN rented the sub and crew after the incident. Transported back to the US. No one knows what countermeasures were developed for such a quiet unimposing sub. I would assume that this was pursued big time. They had it for a couple of years, good to have been tactically sunk though and find that out.
Lol China has 8 nuclers submarines
@@tutu88524 Uh, no, they have two old Type 091, six Type 093 AND five or six Type 094.
And regardless, what does it matter?
Nuclear submarines are comparatively big noisy targets, no matter how useful their greater strategic speed and endurance is.
If the aim of a nation is to attack others far away from home, nuclear submarines have an advantage.
If your primary mission is defense of the homeland, non-nuclear has some major advantages.
China's weakness is it grew too fast ecomically, faster than its tech could keep up with. So it had to do many stop gap measures in the meantime, like procuring diesel subs or ski ramp carriers. Also China prioritised defending its shores first, so it doesn't need nuclear subs except as second strike capability in nuclear war, and 8 is enough for that, or at least for now.
Within the next 10-30 years however, China will transition into a full blown blue water navy, and will be able to match or exceed USA militarily and technologically. I have no doubt about that. That is China's own stated timeline. To have a world class military by 2050. Aka be able to go toe to toe with USA in anything and everything.
China's biggest weakness however is its lack of overseas bases. It doesn't matter if you have nuclear subs, you still need to replenish food and water supplies from friendly countries or your overseas bases. And based on what I've seen, China has been working on that. I predict some overseas bases in South America, and maybe another one in west coast of Africa, and some in pacific island as has been reported in the news like Solomon Islands. China needs to sign some agreements and be able to use those ports to counter USA and west, otherwise China will forever be vulnerable to blockades and other shenanigans. China cannot attack and make an enemy of every country USAs has bases in, so China will need to use diplomacy and its economic might to make those countries guarantee China the same access and also make those countries be neutral in any USA vs China war.
Of course, the most important is to ramp up China's nuclear stockpile to deter such war from every happening, and if it does happen, at least China will have the firepower to take on the world and destroy it if need be. And China has been doing that, they will have 1000 nukes by end of the decade probably. The only reason no one ever talks about attacking Russia or even blockading Russian exports etc is becsuse Russia has that many nukes. China needs to do the same ASAP and put an end to talks of "defending Taiwan" or "blocking malacca straight " once and for all.
While I agree with most if not all you said, things need time and patience to build, nothing happen overnight.
You can't have a oversea base without blue water navy. You can't have a blue water navy without a way to defend your land first.
In my opinion, the first thing Mao ensured and prioritized was PLA's nuclear capabilities along with their conventional land warfare at the time. I think that's what any sensible person would have done. Don't believe western militarial propaganda of their self ego inflating with saying China only has 300 nukes. They most likely have well beyond 1000 by now lol
@@GoldenKhanate06 yeap, we all know those countries without nuke are the first to go or political change. The US don't want countries with nuke to have political because they don't want lost nuke which is extremely dangerous.
I'm so glad China choose nuke, although the US place sanctions on China and cause the great leap forward (China either try and die OR just sitting around waiting to die due to sanctions)
Step by step. Steady as she goes. Fair seas, China.
China is not like the US, China is after a win-win situation. see the difference between China and US's foreign policy in the Middle East and Africa . The US wants hegemony, China is an exchange. So far China has only one overseas base, and it's only a supply depot, not a garrison,for use against pirates off Somalia. China will never need overseas military bases.
The US has a special class of nuclear powered submarines, the Ohio class SSGNs which can carry upto 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Tomahawks were quietly upgraded to block V standard which can be used to strike against land targets or ships. A single Ohio class SSGN can potentially fire a massive salvo of 154 sea skimming Tomahawks against an enemy carrier battle group from a safe distance. The PLAN fleets needs more effective airborne early warning capability than the Ka-31s to counter this kind of threat.
Tomahawks are land attack missiles. The ship attack version was discontinued a long time ago. They are too large and too slow to be effective in that role.
@@xsu-is7vq They were all upgraded to Block V with new sensors and navigation for their maritime strike roles. They are long range missile with very large warheads which hide from shipborne radars until the terminal phase by hugging the sea surface. They can also loitor to wait for other missiles in order to hit the target all at the same time. So a large salvo will not be easy to defend.
Submarines are the biggest threat to any country, but the American Tomahawk is a short-range surface-launched missile. If a submarine turns on its biosensor to search for Chinese warships underwater, it will inevitably be captured by the anti-sonar of Chinese warships. , so Chinese warships can defend against incoming missiles in advance. At the same time, it can also attack submarines. Submarines are used as a strategic nuclear deterrent, not to attack surface ships.
But you may not know that China's long-range nuclear weapons cannot be intercepted by the United States. And China's interception technology is the most advanced in the world, capable of intercepting all strategic missiles of the United States.
Although the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, why don't American aircraft carriers dare to enter the South China Sea? Because the strike distance of China's anti-ship missiles far exceeds the strike radius of the aircraft carrier.
A huge weakness of American ships is their prices. When the Chinese put $1 billion on the table, they have a Type 055 destroyer. In the US, that's a third of a Burke destroyer. And the Burke is not especially superior. It's just that in the US military-industrial complex, charging $500 for a box of 40 bolts is standard.
You raise a pertinent point. It is easy to be 'awed' by the absolute nominal value of the US defense budget, but the extent it contribute to increases in the stock of capability needs to be adjusted for PPP and maintenance of existing equipment, and so on.
Doing business in the US is more expensive. Workers are treated and paid better which naturally increases costs.
That said, I don't think money will be as big of an issue.
US defense spending is less than Russia as a % of GDP. The US economy is still #1 and growing.
In fact, during the 80s the US spent over 6% of its GDP on defense compared to 3.5% in 2021.
There is a LOT of room for US Defense Spending to grow.
Very good point. The whole US military industry seems to be so corrupted and inefficient.
@@biochemwang2421 how so?
@@FloofyMinari Compared to Russia yes. But I think we all understand that the number 1 adversary of the USA is no longer Russia. And China has incredible financial reserves, it is not a debt industry ready to explode like the western world in 2008.
It seems to me that China is beginning to shift from a shore defence/A2AD strategy towards one aimed at global power projection, since that is ultimately what aircraft carriers and SSNs are used for. I think this suggests that the PLAN are broadly confident in their ability to defend Chinese waters (and those that China claims) from a US intervention. Let's hope we never have to find out whether that confidence is well-founded or not.
with the carriers + land based ballistic missiles, I think China will squeeze US carriers beyond 2nd island chain
I agree. China's timeline is to have world class militsry by 2050, and we are beginning to see the first signs of that. China is starting to sign more agreements for overseas bases and using other countries ports(exclusively or shared lol). See Solomon Islands, naval base in Cambodia, etc, I predict base in South America and another one in west African coast. And of course one in Pakistan. But China doesn't want to do that just yet since it will upset India and also make China look bad, but in the long run it will have to. Otherwise it will be at a huge disadvantage if war does break out. Logistics is basically everything.
@@ex0duzz I think those are fairly solid predictions, especially since we've seen very real talks about setting up a PLAN base in Argentina. In West Africa, China already has a military base in Equatorial Guinea, so might expand there, but given how important the Senegalese port of Dakar is to Belt and Road could set up a base further north, perhaps in the Gambia in keeping with their current pattern of building bases in smaller African countries.
@@fatdoi003 Don't be surprised to see Chinese Carrier Strike Group(s) in the Gulf of Mexico practicing "Freedom of Navigation" just like the USA!
Slow & steady.
One often overlooked difference between Chinese Navy and US Navy is while Chinese Navy is mainly built to defends its own territory, the Us Navy has to serve as a reinforcement of the US world dominance. This means as Chinese navy is mainly deployed along the coast of China, while the U.S. Navy needs to be deployed scattered around the world. This makes it easier for the Chinese navy to get a scale advantage over the US navy in the Western Pacific region.
China does not have advantage over US in western Pacific region because US navy have bases in Japan, Korea and Philippines. Couple of the carriers are docked in korea or japan. In Hawaii and Guam navy base.
@@coolsoenie I did not say that the Chinese navy already has any advantage now. However, it should be noted that the Chinese navy does not need to be able to defeat the U.S. Navy in the Western Pacific. As long as they can ensure that the U.S. Navy pays a heavy price, it will deter the U.S. Navy from intervening in the Taiwan conflict.
@@金翰飞 I think China needs strike first at all USA bases that is nearby China and the ones have carrier's in Pacific Ocean. Otherwise USA strikes back with their allies.
@@coolsoenie It will be a quite tricky choice. Although China can certainly wipe out all US bases nearby with our massive stock of various missiles, however it would be rather stupid to make such an aggressive move and give US a perfect excuse to interfere Taiwan issue which is legally speaking a domestic matter since Tiwan is not a sovereign state.
I think the best move for China is to keep building an armed force that is nearly as strong as the U.S. military in the Pacific， then the US will have to think twice before sending force to fight us when it's not absolute necessary. And by the time US came up with a decision, we will have already taken Tiwan since it's not a very big island for an army which is almost as strong as the US army.
@@coolsoeniehaving bases surrounding China and having equal amount of deployable force that is comparable to Chinese deployable force are not the same thing. US may match China on numbers, But US has far more frontiers to think about. And it is the Chinese threat that ultimately provoked US to limit its involvements in Gulf, and Afghanistan. Freeing up assets. Furthermore unlike NATO in Europe, Taiwan Korea and Japan does not have a unified and collaborative military structure. Which poses a big question regarding their reliability in a coordinated effort.
Compared to the US fleet, the Chinese ships are built in recent years and therefore much newer; also it has allowed China to apply newer technologies to those ships. Many of the US ships are or about to retire
Yes.
Unfortunately the US has been busy defending the world from Terrorists and sadly the Navy didn't receive as much attention.
I think the US navy's future is bright. More and more politicians and international allies are seeing the threat of China.
We have a few upcoming projects that can definitely give us a technology edge.
If I were the US, I would hold off the retirement of the Ticonderoga cruisers by 10-15 years. Those cruisers are arguably the best anti-ballistic missile defense ships in the world, and with China employing the new YJ 21 anti ship ballistic missile, the US is going to need every ballistic missile defense capability they can. Plus the Ticonderoga is still one hell of a air defense platform. The Arleigh burkes are so weighed down physically and systematically and with not enough pure radar power that they would only be mediocre at anti-ballistic missile defense at best. Russia or China could even consider nuclear strikes if either country gets super invested in Ukraine or Taiwan. Until global security is more assured, I would keep the Ticonderoga around a while longer
Being built later does not make it more advanced.
American weapons that were retired 50 years ago stopped russias newest weapons dead in their tracks.
It will be similar with naval warfare.
@@jaredevans8263 I agree I love the Ticos, but the flight 3 Burke's are getting new SPY-6 radar, which is better than what's in the Ticos. Even the flight 2s and under are being retrofitted with smaller versions of SPY-6
@jpierce2l33t yeah I get they getting retrofitted, but the Ticonderoga has more radar power output (more ship power to radar systems) and more space for radar equipment. I don't get how the burkes can be upgraded yet again after being so weighed down systematically
One thing for sure, these ships are more capable than the ones it replaces and chinese fleet are the largest in the world. They have improved on qualities and quantities. She has not stop on growing.
Nice video as always.
If anything, PLAN is undersized. It's size should be the combine of all the threat it faces.
It might be a paper tiger today, but in 5-10 years time they might match the USN if the US doesn't start to sort out their problems
解决个屁，要能解决，16年南海对峙就不会跑了，他放弃了最后的机会
@@apucer4102 像你这样？😂
@@JoshuaC923 MD，居然遇到香蕉人了，晦气。你美爹就是在16年对峙的时候走了，你不服气？
In this 21st century when guided missiles of all ranges are the key to winning a battle or war, the role of an aircraft carrier is much diminished.
I wonder why China is limiting its WARSHIP building ability by 10x?
Not to scare off the world?
China has over 3000+ shipbuilding yards,
-- 529 shipyards are capable of building ship of 10,000+ tons above
-- 56 capable of building 100,000+ tons above ships
--30 capable of building 300,000+ tons above ships
-And 6 Super shipyards capable of building half a million tons vessels(!!)
All can produce warships in a week.
Every year China builds thousands of various kinds of new ships.
China ship building industry produces over half of the entire world ship production by tonnage.
And these are the shipyards we KNOW about.
I'm sure that have secret bases.
It's a balance act of building economy first vs percentage to build warship.
We are in a somewhat peaceful time so it's not priority. Having a strong economy and improving the livelihood of the people is better than having all those warship laying around. China just need enough to defend it region. It's not looking for world domination like the US is. Business is better than war. Everyone wins in business. War cause lots of fatherless and motherless children.
The US is a war economy, causing chaos to sell weapons, hence, I believe it is 60% of each dollar is spend on the military industrial complex.
There's many reasons why a naval power in peacetime may want to limit its build-up below its maximum potential. Technology and experience is constantly improving, and this means a ship laid down today will use inferior technology and less optimised design compared to what will become available in the not-too-distant future, but the maintenance cost may not be that much different (improvement in some technology, e.g. automation, actually reduce cost). Building a large number of warships at the same time will provide less capability than if the build-up is split into several different classes and/or iterations over a number of years. Building excessively above growth in the economy and by association tax receipts will mean a lower proportion of the military budget can go into developing new technology, and procuring better ships in the future. This is to say nothing of the need to train personnel to man the new equipment, and to build the bases to service these assets, and the diplomatic and geostrategic repercussions of a sharp build-up (as you alluded to).
I will say though historically countries have been willing to start building large naval assets without having the optimal mix of technology ready, compared to army and air assets. This is because of the long construction time for naval capital units relative to land and air units. It is also why historically nations do not build more than a few units of a given ship class, before moving on to the successor design.
@@EurasiaNaval I like to add, when building ships with newer tech, it's always better to build slowly (especially in peace time) so you can find out any weaknesses and where things could improve and implemented the changes to newer one.
Basically building on the foundations of previous generations . That is our mindset as Chinese, we implemented the good and remove the bad, one could see it in Chinese government. It combines all the good type of each governance and rem9ve the bad part; hence China is combinations of communist, democracy, socialist, etc.
Question is, why China need warships as a continental power? Unlike US island countries, it need warship secure its water path while China can directly ship on land. I dont think it is very necessary for China to over waste money on unnecessary warships.
great vid!
謝謝！
謝謝大哥!
The coolest way to showcase this brand new fleet is to reenact the Ming's treasure fleet voyage 😏
Regarding sea based anti-ballistic capability, a few weeks ago I saw videos saying the HQ-26 was tested by a weapon test ship, meaning it could be equipped by the 055s soon. As of the Chinese Navy weakness, I think it will most likely to be the software, not hardware. Ships and aircrafts are relatively easy and quick to build, while crews and pilots are harder and take much longer. The US has a very early head start and lots of battle hardened men, while China is lacking in both areas. More UAVs and automation may mitigate but there will still be quite some catch up for PLAN to do.
I wouldn't overstate the "battle hardened men" of the US armed forces. They haven't been in a high intensity conflict for decades. In the case of a war between China and the US, I doubt either side would have much of an advantage in terms of experience.
@@mirror452 That has some element of truth but a fact is China has no real world experience in neither surface(arguable, minesweepers) nor under water battles. Many bugs are ironed out only after being spotted in real world uses and lessons are learned at cost of lives. Of course you have the US sub crews that wrecked a seawolf sub simply by sailing but given the sheer amount of actual US Navy activities around the globe I'd still say US has a big advantage.
WHAT IT'S HQ26, IT'S ANTI BAL!ST!C M!SS!LE?!!
那张试射HQ-26的照片据说是5年前拍的了
@@brianjiang2287
W!TH ENGL!SH PLEASE, I AM CH!NESE 0VERSEAS IN IND0NES!A, I CAN' T READ MANDAR!N TEXT...
Fair assessment. Today's technology is changing too fast especially on the missiles know-how.
The analysis of China's naval strength is still very accurate and more reasonable than most conceited Westerners..
Although the number of military aircraft of Liaoning and Shandong warships is not equal to that of the United States, the capability of China's aircraft carrier battle group, which is composed of destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines, is relatively not behind that of the United States. The aircraft of Liaoning warships provide air defense security for the fleet, while the supersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles have an ultra-long attack range, It will make the aircrafts of the US aircraft carrier combat group unable to reach the appropriate attack range...
In 10 years, China will have two 003 or 004 aircraft carrier battle groups.. With the Liaoning and Shandong warships, in the western Pacific, the US military will completely lose its leading ability.. Exit the third island chain..
The Chinese navy still needs constant practice. It can go to Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, and other places in the United States for long-distance training... If there is a war in the future, the battlefield cannot be all at the door of China. We must let the enemy country's own land have military pressure... Only in this way can we stop the war ambitions of these crazy people who launched many wars with the slogan of freedom and democracy
Oh no buddy it is relatively decades behind the US. The American carrier battle group is bigger, has more missiles and more advanced ships as well. Better destroyers, better submarines, better radars, better missiles, better aircraft like the US already have 5th gen fighters in their navy and while the Chinese are still trying to put their 5th gen fighters America is already developing their 6th gen fighter. China is trying to catch up but currently America is not stopping!
@@ulikemyname6744 give us the statistics and well talk
freedom” is only a brand created by the american politicians
@@lishen9 The US navy has around 10,000 missile cells compared to around 3,300 for China - article from Forbes 2021.
Most numerous Chinese destroyer is the Type 052D which is smaller and has less firepower.
I think better submarines it is not all that hard to explain you can even re-watch this vide where he ssays that China lacks in submarines numbers and technology.
F-18 super hornets and F-35 Lightning are a lot better than the Soviet-designed J-15s. There is not even a point of comparison.
F/A - XX is waay underway! Anything about the Chinese 6th gen fighter?
everything is lying in America policy. i thing US single play with China impossible. China strongly every sections.
Ships / hardware/ tech = Def powerful navy. However, The hearts and the minds of the Soldiers who operate them determine if that Dragon Breathes Fire or is made of Paper.
Need a video on Pakistan Navy too now... especially the upgrading of Zulfiqar class...
Happen to have one coming next week... (not on Navy, but on the Airforce)
@@EurasiaNaval yay
@@kanding3369 RRRRRIIIIIGGGHHHTTTTT MR. DING... you're right.
When the United States and Britain became world hegemons, they were both the first industrial powers at that time. Don't underestimate the productivity of industrial powers
3 questions; What is the actual level of training of the PLNA in terms of quality? 2; What are their fuel reserves incase of war; e.g., do they have enough reserves incase the Straights of Hurmuz and Malacca get shut down? 3, What impact will projections of their declining work force have on their naval building program?
The PRC have a much more capable surface force than they get credit for, IMO, they would be formidable! Though they’re at least decades behind the US when it comes to subsurface and overall joint doctrine capabilities.
Superior joint-maneuver logistics is a major advantage for US and NATO, and that has come from decades of experience, even if it mostly hasn't been near peer.
@@TheOpethOfMastodon I concur, absolutely the case.
Also a large quantity of smaller warship allows for greater command level experience and training of officers as well as vetting that can be moved into larger ship if and when the need arises. War ships are only as good as the men manning them.
No matter how this world change，China always is a peace-loving country.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Taiwan : ?
Another great video!
Having watched several videos on the PLA and the PLAN, I believe the personnel are much more motivated to defend their Motherland than the USN personnel are in their aggressor role. Remember what happened with the crew of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea when she was buzzed by a Russian Su-24 that fried much of her electronics?
One other point to consider, does China have a close enough relationship with Russia that she can rely on the Russian Navy SSN's to supplement her surface fleet whilst she catches up? Just wondering.
other western video: "US interest" or "freedom of navigation"
meanwhile this video: "global HEGEMONY"
me when i heard it: "U nailed it!!"
Both are true. When the British and French ruled the seas pirates and naval warfare was rampant and in the Soviet Union controlled seas trade was severely limited until the USN was there to aid. Because of the open oceans (due to the USN) globalization has been able to happen. So o would not say you’re wrong by you’re coming at it from a biased perspective.
@@seanpruitt6801 "biased perspective." - r u serious, dude?
@@leexingha in most modern naval and merchant mariners books they cite sources of anti drug anti piracy and anti terrorism threats on the ocean that is mitigated by the USN. several sources back up my claim. That’s not being biased that’s being true.
@@seanpruitt6801 "that’s not being biased that’s being true" - that's being blind
@@seanpruitt6801 let me give u a simple logic - u dont nid a carrier group task force just to mitigate drugs & piracy. u can just simply sell naval equip to those countries who were suppose to deal the problem in their respective backyard. or rather than throwing flames in Rus-Ukr war, ur warmonger country could just simply give them to some very poor country plagued with illegal water activites
Every Military Weapons are Quality is the Best...👌😬😇
The US never could've imagined the Chinese had bypassed the steam catapult system for the magnetic one in their carrier.
Type 003 is supposed to have that we know. However it being operational and capable of simultaneous launches has not been determined or confirmed as far as I can tell (like to see it function, same as CVN 78)...
Not saying it won't work but once it's in action that will change opinions including mine.
Also they 'bypassed it' by directly copying ours, just like everything else. Let's see how those hand-me-downs work for them lol
@@jpierce2l33t just like how usa has copied others.
@@sampatkalyan3103 in which regard? You mean our world's largest carrier fleet, that's nuclear powered and the first with electromagnetic catapults?
@@jpierce2l33t in all regards.
you are right!
Does the PLAN have railguns on their warships? I saw an article about the use of rail guns as an experiment on one of their ships a few years back.
China has tested the pure kinetic railgun on an amphibious warship a few years ago (can't remember exactly when, but it was fairly recent), but nothing operationalised, as you say.
Coming soon to a ‘theatre’ near u…
For experiments only.
China from time immemorial have a sailing tradition. Its ships sailed all over asia. In terms of modern navy ships, it fell asleep in the 19th century but it is now has a very strong and getting stronger by the day. Sailing instincts will always be found in many Chinese. The Chinese are now not too far behind over probably is ahead now in terms of technology and warplay is not too far behind.
Ballistic missiles aren't as big of a threat to the Chinese navy as it is to Western navies.
Neither Japan nor Australia have ballistic missiles. The US' silos are all on the continent; they have no intermediate ranged ballistic missiles, certainly none that can hit a ship at sea.
The US Navy is also stuck with a crappy anti-ship missile, the subsonic Harpoon II. If the Chinese DDGs can intercept supersonic jets, they should have no issue with a much slower Harpoon II.
What do you mean US silos are all on the continent? The biggest chunk of the US nuclear triad is in their submarines.
The US navy is stuck with "crappy anti-ship missile"? Like the SM-6 missile? Oh didn't know that the SM-6 missile subsonic. Maybe mach 3.5 is subsonic speed?
@@ulikemyname6744 the SM-6 is not designed with anti-ship capability in mind as the priority function. Besides the use of it will be reserved heavy on air defense and it is still far behind in terms of anti-ship capability comparing to the Chinese YJ-21 and other land based and air launched hypersonic anti-ship missiles, like the one seen on the H-6K bomber and the DF-21
@@ulikemyname6744 SM-6 is crapt dude. Seriously.
I can shat out one better than SM-6!
@@johnsmith1953x 🤖🤖🤖
@@BravoCheesecake Your mothers arse is a bot fool.
052d的垂发单元和055的垂发单元是同一个型号，052d也能发射YJ-21。只是数量比055少。
#1 in the world in my opinion, more so as they equip their numerous non-main ships with modern weaponry
#2 maybe but far from #1. They are still far behind in their number of carriers
@@dengist8172 Carriers are only good against enemies without anti-ship hypersonic missiles. Probably very efficient against Iraq, Afghanistan and similar countries..
@@BSnicks Hypeesonic missiles are not everything, carriers will always be nessisary due to need for naval aviation. And it is most likely not as capable of sinking carriers as they are advertised, I mainly see them as a deterrent rather than an effective weapon.
@@winstonchurchill5892 Can you send a msg to the US Navy and tell them about your thoughts?
@@BSnicks I would but they probably wouldn’t care, just like hypersonic missiles.
China is not attacking others they r just defending themselves that is why they r good in conventional power submarine fleet
With the fast improvement in battery technology, non nuclear submarines are looking better and better. Its definitely more quiet and much cheaper to built and maintain. Numbers due matter.
Chinese fleet age is a lot younger than US. Modern technology.
Love for China🇰🇷🥰
Ewwww
I am often skeptical of the Chinese "stated" capabilities (biased of coarse). Does the equipment function as stated? When was the last time China engaged in naval wartime engagements? Meaning do their ship captains and admirals really know how to conduct naval warfare? We are seeing how Russia has been reduced by complacency after soviet union ended, while Ukraine has improved (with help). I think we will know the answers to these questions in a few short years (or sooner).
How do you know the U.S. capabilities are stated. How do you know they UNDERSTATED. That’s how propaganda gets you. You do realize when both British and US became a naval power, neither had naval engagements before.
in 1923 japan had a navy of 632 ships including 20 carriers, news source, on line, japan navy 1920s
Yeah and they tried to fight an all out oceanwide Pacific war against the United States while their economy was on life support and 3 quarters of their Army was fighting in China and South East Asia.
Not only that but they struck American soil which ensured full American support of the war whereas otherwise American intervention would have been limited by public unwillingness to fight a war in Asia without having been attacked. Add on top of that the fact that they were cartoonisly evil and fed the American propaganda machine with real War Crimes more heinous than any American propagandist could even invent.
They played their cards as poorly as they could have. By January of 1942 they had already lost the war.
China will not make these mistakes.
They will not attack US soil. They will not attack the territory of any of its legitimate neighbours. They will urge everyone to remain neutral in case of an invasion of Taiwan and they will make sure that by that time they have the military strength to make anyone think twice about joining a war for Taiwan on the side of America.
They will not try to fight a Pacific war but will have all of their ships operate in their national waters in range of their shore missiles, drone swarms and aircraft.
So, completely different scenario.
China is growing, but I think the US can maintain their superiority if congress pays more attention and gives more resources to the Navy.
We need to replace our Ticos and aging flight 1 Burkes.
Hopefully we can get DDGX moving faster and refit our Zumwalts.
On a good note, the Air Force NGAD 6th Genration aircraft seems to be making impressive progress and I can imagine the FA-XX is close behind. Coupled with the B-21 I think we can safely assume the Air Force will play a bigger role in the Pacific than we thought.
By the time the J35 is in production the US will already be ahead with their 6th Gen aircraft.
Let's not forget the new Hypersonic Missiles being developed.
Zumwalts is fucked. It designed based on false premises. DDGX is the next generation of US Navy main battleship.
Chinese being step ahead in terms of naval surface warfare offensive capabilities is a bit questionable though, only as of now. Because most of American fleet offensive capabilities are demonstrated by carrier based strike aircrafts. Ships primarily serve a purpose of anti-submarine and anti-air screen in conjunction with carrier-based CAP and ASW assets.
That being said, China is certainly, slowly but steadily moving towards the US doctrine of carrier-based air power being the primary provider of fleet offensive capabilities.
You have to discuss the Chinese Weakness of Electronics Production
Chinese radars are not on par with the older Spy-1 and certainly not with Spy-6. Plus there are 5th gen F-35s and distributed battlefield integration. Chinese should also train for amphibious warfare. They should develop high quality electro-optical systems and infrared imaging cameras to defeat stealth craft. TB-2 Bayraktar type small but highly effective MALEs are needed. Quiter nuclear submarines and more... China does not need to match U.S. step by step. They should outsmart them with asymmetrical technologies and doctrines like Turkish military. Aside from the submarines I don't see any hints that Chinese understanding the finer points of force projection.
Bring your f35 to the south China sea let's see whether the Chinese can detect or not.
It's not just building their own nuclear subs and carrier aviation. Its also the coordination on how to use it for strategic and tactical purposes. China is relatively inexperienced and will take years for them to know how to use them properly in a war situation.
The idea that your opponent, for no reason at all, somehow don't know how to use their forces, is a recurring theme for declining empires in history, and always end in their collapse. This mentality is indicative of the point of no return in an empire's terminal decline.
Anytime you underestimate, you lose.. even you don't underestimate, in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, great power still lost.
the US navy had little war fighting experience prior to WW2. Didn't seem to have had too much impact on their performance
@@janusjones6519 Oh it had a lot of impact especially in the early stages of the war. Good thing about the US military is that they had naval-heavy doctrine. Another good thing is that unlike the Japanese America was heavy on its air force as well. They were early to realize how effective their air force could be on the filed of battle and sea. The Japanese were not so heavily invested into the their air force despite having so many carriers in the beginning of the war. America was one of the fiest nations to invest heavily in that field and by the end of the war that was visible having built 99 carriers 28 of which being big. Still the US had some problems with inexperienced people in the beginning. And yet it is not all that simple because inexperienced soldier back then wasn't that big of a deal as it is right now. Today's war is surgical and requires a lot of experienced people in many many fields.
True, but this can be said to most navies, except the USN.
Don't underestimate the Chinese navy. They have the world's second largest fleet of surface warships, and they have the world's largest shipbuilding capabilities. The best way to deal with the Chinese navy is to escalate their internal conflicts
Well done China. 💪💪👏👏👍👍💯💯❤❤
china vs usa naval race reminde me so much of anglo-german naval race, geopolitical situation are close too.
With tomahawks block v rolling out with a 1000mi+ range vs the 300mi of the YJ-18 and 900+ mi of the YJ-21 which is only on the few 055s China has, I very much doubt that the surface vessels will have many opportunities to shoot at each other. A single Ohio with its 157 tomahawks will be a regional threat to any Chinese surface vessels. Not to mention that even the old and numerous improved LA class subs the US has stacks 12 tomahawks. I don’t think the naval powers will be shooting at each other much, if previous US strategies are of any precedence, they will try and attrit the Chinese surface fleets with waves of attacks launched from aircraft or subs until it’s safe to send in forces that are capable of overwhelming under strength positions and using intel, precision and range to surgically diminish threats before they can regroup.
🇨🇳 May God grant Victory to the People's Republic of China.
Within the next 20 years, the US Navy will grow to over 500 ships. GO NAVY!!!
I'm a USN vet. The US is capable but cost and industry ability are not what they used to be. Only New Port News builds the CVNs. Means limited capacity and build time even with super lift is long. R&D and all involved is Hugh right down to congress involvement etc. Slows development and procurement.
USA is can do, but looks like the PRC is getting there as well. Never underestimate an adversary or competitor, you'll get bit. Believe that's called arrogance!
In next ten years, you'd be lucky that the total number does not decrease.
Yes, u r damn right! 500 not enough,1000!
Is there any sense of construction quality of PLAN ships? I know the USN had the loss of the USS Thresher to influence the passage of SUBSAFE laws to help ensure high quality construction.
No they just spend billions of dollars building junk with absolutely no quality control. Walmart is filled with cheap plastic made in China junk because that’s what the supply and demand wants not because that’s all they can make. At least not in 2023.
I wonder if an 055 can be easily sunk by a few jets? Or can an 055 withstand large amounts of missiles if struck?
Which type of missiles are you talking about ? If its the Harpoons ir the NSM there is no chance of Breaching the air defense layer of the destroyer.
Only supersonic missiles can pose a threat to this warship. US doesn't have any of those.
The 055s are designed for anti-air warfare and serves a the primary air defense for future Chinese carrier groups
Without hypersonic antiship missiles, it would take a lot more than just a few jets. The rather large AESA array is often not given it's due weight by a lot of amateur analysts. Early detection is so important for defense, as much or more so than the actual antiair/antimissile weapons. Actual performance of Chinese destroyers will be significantly higher than our own ships without AESA. Of course, our ships often operate within aircraft carrier battlegroups with fixed wing AWACS, mitigating this issue. 2 out of 3 Chinese carriers have no catapult, which means only less effective helicopter AWACS. Although most Chinese ships operate close to home, within range of bigger and more effective full sized AWACS. So... It's complicated. But to answer your question, no, a couple of fighters without hypersonic missile won't be enough to get a hit in, mainly because due to their far more effective onboard radar, you can't really catch Chinese destroyers with its pants down like you can if one of ours was caught alone and unsupported.
China can easily sunk any American war ship's with hypersonic missiles that a guarantee.......!!!!!!!!!! Nothings can stop it.......!!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese advantages are they make their own defence weapons.
No real world experience, CCP big paper tiger 🐯
你忘了1950年我们在朝鲜以绝对的装备劣势吊打你们美军的时候了？
论实战经验没人比得过PLA
Strenght - quantity /weakness - quality of ship when goes combat tempo, crew / pilots lack of experiencer in real war but good in parade
China banks on large surface ships while lacking on capability on sub surface area, is a disaster in a makings! The US navy operates huge amounts of submarines, and giving that china has practically no experience and capability about submarine warfare? Is mockery of their navy! Furthermore? Chinas military branches operates separately compare to the US combined command! 😂 the US will have a field day sinking all those ships to the bottom of the ocean in no time! And they will do it in short distances, within the proximity of first island chain..
Bs we couldn't even win in Afghanistan. Stop the bs.
@@mshieh70 pacification of a conquered nation is different than naval warfare! 😂 your expert ass!
Lol stay off the fentanyl bub
@@mshieh70 .. Communist PLA, CCP take on whom.. The peaceful religious people of Tibet.. or Vietnam and smaller islands of the coast of Philippines, Vietnam and other Countries…
@@isayusayweallcansayif so then why wait.
USA have been sailing up and down like a fool since 2016 in south china sea.
Yet invades weak countries like Iraq and afghan within weeks...
Then the counter of missile is just a laser
With the 21st Century technologies, ships or even planes could be just "toys" to awe the general public. Wouldn't the real war be engaged through hypersonic missiles all over the sky? With advanced satellites, maybe even the older missiles could be "misled" into self-destruction? Let us all hope that such scenario can prevent any futile engagement among nations!!
Others can say what they like. It is understandable they are all jealous of a sudden surging forward of the PLN which the existing powers dont like, while those that suddenly found themselves left far behind are not pleased about too.
Confucius say “quantity over quality”
I mean in this day and age there's no tonnage that you can give a warship which will prevent it from being sunk by a swarm of drones and hypersonic maneuver missiles.
For China's goal, which regional power projection, they want to have a navy large enough to not be able to be sunk by a few concentrated strikes even if they do go through.
Besides, they only need a few aircraft carriers since they can rely on mainland airbases for most of their needs. Again, they don't need to be able to fight a war 30,000km from their shores, they are not America
USA ship yards
are needing to build up production strength in case of War breaks out?
Imagine China unexpectedly goes on a building spree suddenly cranking out hundreds of ships as if they were preparing for war. What is the US going to do? START the war before those ships are completed and sailors trained for them? Would that not make the US the bad guys?
China is only building ships. They could say they're modernising and replacing old ships, and then never get rid of the "old" ships (all of which are still newer than most of the US fleet). They could spread false rumours about the old ships having some critical flaw. It wouldn't be difficult to paint cracks on some of the ships and leak the photo to make the rumour more believable.
Alternatively, the US could start building more yards and training workers, and before the new yards are half done and any work on any new ship even started, China has completed all their ships and started on batch #2.
Remember why Japan lost WW2. It was not because the US had better naval planes and ships. Took a while for the US to get cranking.
If it is China that decides they want a war, they would first put their enormous industrial capacity to cranking out war materials, and dare the US to start the war. The US would be in this awful dillema. If it starts the war, its allies wouldn't follow.
If it is the US that decides to start the war, it can try to damage China's factories and shipyards, but it would lose a lot of planes and perhaps a good chunk of its navy doing this. And again, being the aggressor, it will have to fight a distant war alone without allies. And China could of course rebuild.
If the US does nothing, China continues to increase its industrial capacity leaving the US behind.
How about the american weaknesses? Where are the mid- size and small surface vessel?
Didn't Chinese submarines follow and Track a UK carrier groups about 2 years ago...however the whole time a UK submarine followed and tracked the Chinese subs without them knowing - as the Brits left the area they contacted the Chinese (who thought they were invisible to the Brits) to say goodby😂😂
The Brits, France and USA are about 15 years ahead of China in top line military technology.
Will PLA Navy build an copy of V 22 Osprey ?
不会 ，技术还不够
The Chinese can already build confused, pointless death traps for much cheaper. They sell them to us daily on Amazon and AliExpress. They don't need to spend billions on a flawed design that kills an entire crew once every year or two.
No, we can’t, that’s too hard
China should remove the Midrange Missles for AA. Only two types are required in warfare. Long Range if your detection equipment is good enough to see the USA's 9th Gen Aircraft.
and Short Range for more agile aircraft and smaller targets.
There are Rumors that within 10 years, the Threat of Nuclear Winter will be nullified as they are close to creation of a device that projects a field that nullifies Nuclear Fusion. Meaning if Fusion can take place, No Nuke in that area can explode.
Honestly Scared of what's gonna happen when USA is the only Country capable of useing Nukes. The balance of Power thats kept realitive peace, will be gone. USA can basically bully even China then and what can China do? Get Nuked? USA will be Immune.
In actual combat America simply by the location of their military, navy, army, Airforce.
Over 800 military bases world wide.
100% support from NATO and many very powerful nations.
u really not know how geopolitic works arent u?
it carry hypersonic missile that US can't stop...
defend scs from foreign invaders
CHINA Navy is a Paper Tiger 🐅
且听龙吟
Liaoning airwing is max only 20
China is doing the right thing... make adversaries think... "too big to fight". How many countries would want a direct war with China? How long before long range weapons will be used directly on to land? So many comments here, this guy will jump in and that guy will jump in - lol!
China can fight smaller Asian countries, but its military is not war tested. Since it's not war tested, there are many defects that may render it fatal for China.
You can tell by looking at the ship no chance
China is making it's own way. All nationalists should support patriots of other nations. Though I hate communism and attack against the church I am glad to see China become mighty again like of old. During the warring states period and time of a thousand scholars. Awesome stuff.
Btw I understand it is complex as sadly many missionary groups and supposedly Christian NGOs have been havens of subversion. The need to oust these kinds of outfits is all too necessary. They do great harm to the church.
does EU really have naval modern tech? I see all depend on US authorization except French navy partially independent
the netherlands have good navy with the subs
Well done China Superpower PLA Navys its weapons onboards all 055D, 052D and 054D are most advanced powerful.💪💪👏👏👍👍💯💯❤❤
Chinese battleships are behind against US high technology advance aircraft carriers and
battleships with submarines and warplanes air support.
What is Yurios?
Any self respecting commander of PLAN will not lose out to 15th century ming dynasty fleet of 328 ships crewed by 28,000 sailors sailing from china to persian gulf under admiral zhanghe
Don't forget US ships are spread thinly . CCP Navy is concentrated around the China Sea
Paper tiger is US not China. US never fought alone, always relying on its allies.can US fight if gps is shut off?
This is nothing but made in China ship. I remember few years ago, when made in China car was tested in Switzerland and everything just fell apart. When they interviewed the CEO of the company, he said that the car was built for a driver to drive it carefully. China's over confidence will lead it to no where.
Me Like.
None of the PLA forces including it's navy have been tested in real modern warfare and this will put it behind the US and Russia. The last major military conflict was in 1979 against Vietnam and it took major loses for minimum gains.
Talking about navy battle, in 1974 China navy fought South Vietnam in South China Sea, it sunk two of SV's four American warships in the battle and damaged the other two. On 1979 conflict with NV, it achieved its strategic goal of destroying Vietnam's industry infrastructure in the north and keeping it at bay from helping Soviet to circle China. Also close to one million China army stationed in northern China waiting for the Soviet but they never showed up as they promised to their Vietnamese ally that they would.
So here is what's likely going to happen, China and US both being nuclear power may not go head to head directly, but any other smaller country or countries (like Japan or Australia) if helping US in a conflict with China will likely be the first to be crushed like what happened 40 years ago when Vietnam was trying to help Soviet to circle China.
Yes yes, we lose the conflict against Vietnam in 1979. Chinese army is shit, so never mind its threat 😊
Second largest?? Isn't it already first largest... Their naval numbers exceed even US
There's multiple ways to measure size (numbers, tonnage, personnel, missile numbers, etc), none of which are perfect.
The Soviets/Russian federation may have been stealing western tech but at least they always had a different look to ship designs, I can respect that. The CCP builds copies, steals, and borrows designs but there is no difference to western designs? Why is that? Could it be the CCP decided to take the best or both the Russians and western world instead of doing something original.