Comparison between Russian, US and Chinese Naval fleets.

GarryB wrote:their latest aircraft carrier can only carry aircraft and not actually deploy them so it is more like a container ship than anything else.

Not deploy them why? Meaning the F-18 Super Hornets and F-35s are unable to take off from this carrier?

With all due respect, the US Navy already looks like worn out prostitute compared to the PLA Navy.
Unfortunately, the only and most important one is still on the US side, that is, the SSN class of submarines.

28 of the 73 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been operational since the last century, and a total of 40 of the 73 have been in service for at least 20 years, which means that the workhorse of the US Navy is already outdated.
The designed life of a destroyer of this class is 35 years, but it can be extended.

* 45 destroyers; China introduced 39 destroyers into active service from 2013 to 2023, and another 6 from 2004 to 2012. I don't count those older than 19 years at all.
* 30 Type-054A frigates put into active service since 2008. Additional Type-054B under construction.I won't even count the frigates commissioned before the Type-054A.
* 50 Type-056A corvettes put into active service from 2013 to 2021.
So here you have 125 built and commissioned ships, the oldest of which are Type-052B destroyers from 2004.

The usual claim you hear about the US Navy being more experienced than the PLAN is also bullshit.

Back in WW2, the US Navy's heyday, the US had one of the largest merchant marines in the world. This meant that they had a huge pool of experienced sailors to recruit from to use in the US Navy. Today their merchant marine is basically gone. And they haven't had a major naval scrap for like 80 years. Their sailors keep committing major goofs including slamming against huge lumbering container ships.

The truth is the Chinese military sailors are about as inexperienced as the US ones. And China has a way larger merchant marine than the US.

The US surface navy is rusting and their next generation ship designs were all a failure. There is only just so much lipstick you can put on a pig like the Arleigh Burke. It is an over 30 years old design by now.

The Chinese Navy still lags behind the US in nuclear submarines, but this probably won't be the case in 10-15 years either. Just this past year and a half the Chinese seem to have put FOUR Type 093B SSNs in the water. So it is highly likely the US will try to push for a major conflict before that happens and the Chinese Navy has overwhelming superiority.

Chinese diesel subs are pretty good and they have some improved kilo.

Off their coast they will smash nay US sub or ship. They also have for sure static sensors to help.

The issue is to protect their sea line far away. They lack very good subs. But it's just a matter of time before they come up with something on par with older akula or los angeles classes which will be very good for them.

To Lancelot...

38 years old, my friend...
On 3 April 1985, Bath Iron Works received a US$321.9 million contract to build the first of the class, USS Arleigh Burke.
That's three years before China got its first motorway line...

The Chinese are currently not doing well with nuclear-powered submarines and ships - future aircraft carriers. Although, I don't really believe the Western criticisms of Chinese submarines either. They may not be at that level, but they are not for waste either.

Podlodka77 wrote:With all due respect, the US Navy already looks like worn out prostitute compared to the PLA Navy.
Unfortunately, the only and most important one is still on the US side, that is, the SSN class of submarines. ..

SSGN & SSBNs too; the USN also has more total tonnage, & many USCG ships can be used in naval ops too. Regarding declining number of surface ships & subs, NATO & Asian allies incereasingly deploy their surface ships & subs with USN- even Canada, UK, France & Germany sent their ships to the SCS & W. Pacific.
Australia & UK also will be getting more/used/new SSNs, so by any strech, those waters won't turn into a Chinese lake anytime soon, despite of the ongoing PRC naval buildup.

Chinese nuclear submarines aren't as bad as you typically hear. For example this is the Type 093A:


And this is a satellite photo of the latest Type 093B variant. Look at the tail. It looks like it uses pump-jet propulsion:


The thing is they only have four Type 093A submarines and the Type 093B subs are most likely still in trials and not operational.

As for their SSKs, they have the Kilo, they cloned it, and have added their own things to it like Stirling engine AIP.

Their submarine fleet isn't uniformly modernized though.

As for the US Coast Guard, the Chinese Coast Guard has had all the Chinese Navy Type 056 corvettes moved to it, and they also have several larger ship types including modified Type 054 frigates. They have even bigger ships:


This is a 12000 tons cutter of the Chinese Coast Guard.

If the Chinese knew they had a top SSN/SSGN submarine, then they would have mass production, but that's not there yet. It is certain that they are lagging behind, but I don't think it will last long, except for the number of attack nuclear submarines. The Chinese have an excellent air force that is certainly a threat to the American surface fleet. How good non-nuclear submarines really are (or not, as I think) would be shown in a clash between these two fleets. And the question of all questions remains, whether submarines are also vulnerable. I don't think they are as vulnerable as ships though.

Well their subs can fire long range missiles. It is still something most soviet and US subs couldn't do when they started SSN.

They also have modern satelitte comms, datalink...

Chinese lack a good SSN tech but they still benefit from modern weapons and sensors to optimize their use against a more technologically advanced enemy.

They have some 10 impr kilo and 40 chinese made type 039 that are all build after 2000. And still building new ones. I would underestimate them. Such subs waiting in ambush around, south west chinese sea, Taiwan and South Korea would decimate an invading force of ships.

To ISOS...


As for missiles, I also don't think the Chinese lack anything.
SSGN submarines; I still think that they don't have a reliable, that is, an attacking nuclear submarine that they are sure of. Therefore, there is no mass serial production.
As for non-nuclear submarines, my opinion is that they are excellent in seas or "ponds" such as the Black Sea or the Baltic, but not in open ocean spaces. But maybe you are right, at least as far as the use of those submarines is concerned a few hundred km from mainland China.


SSN or SSGN; I think all nuclear submarines today are actually SSGN because they have the ability to launch cruise missiles. I think the name SSN is outdated.
I'm not criticizing you here, but the frequently used abbreviation.

Since SSBNs won't be launching CMs from their tubes, as their puropse is to stay hidden & act as a detterant, 2nd strike platform, or, in case of US/RN, also as promt strike SLBM patform, calling them SSGN isn't practical nor warranted.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Since SSBNs won't be launching CMs from their tubes, as their puropse is to stay hidden & act as a detterant, 2nd strike platform, or, in case of US/RN, also as promt strike SLBM patform, calling them SSGN isn't practical nor warranted.

Who mentioned SSBN submarines ?
It was only about SSN and SSGN.
* SSN; ship submarine nuclear,
* SSGN; ship submarine guided (missile) nuclear,
* SSBN; Ship Submarine Ballistic Nuclear.

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

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

Podlodka77 wrote:To ISOS...


As for missiles, I also don't think the Chinese lack anything.
SSGN submarines; I still think that they don't have a reliable, that is, an attacking nuclear submarine that they are sure of. Therefore, there is no mass serial production.
As for non-nuclear submarines, my opinion is that they are excellent in seas or "ponds" such as the Black Sea or the Baltic, but not in open ocean spaces. But maybe you are right, at least as far as the use of those submarines is concerned a few hundred km from mainland China.


SSN or SSGN; I think all nuclear submarines today are actually SSGN because they have the ability to launch cruise missiles. I think the name SSN is outdated.
I'm not criticizing you here, but the frequently used abbreviation.

For a war against Taiwan/USA diesel subs will be very important.

But further away the lack of good SSN will be devastating. A solution would be to open bases here and there to base some diesel subs. Not perfect but it would protect their interests and sea lanes much better.

To Isos....

I think the same and have nothing to add.

To Lancelot...

The first thing that comes to my mind is that China is not transparent at all about the delivery of weapons systems to its Army, AF,  or Navy.
And while the ships are easy to calculate because the Chinese officially announce their introduction into active service, it is not so for other weapon systems.
For example, everyone estimates that there are currently around 300 J-16 and probably over 200 J-20 aircraft in operation.
Before the SMO, the Russians did provide open data on the number of delivered aircraft and armored vehicles, and this is now a military secret.
With the Chinese, it was always a military secret.

I don't think the Chinese are far behind in anything with the exception of SSBN (SLBM's also) and SSGN submarines, probably also hypersonic weapons, as well as strategic bombers.
* China; 37 destroyers delivered in the last 10 years or 45 in the last 19 years; 50 corvettes in the last 10 years and 30 frigates in the last 15 years. That's 125 ships in total.
* If we count submarines, here too the Chinese are ahead of the US because with the total number of built nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, they are again ahead of the US.
I agree with you but my opinion is that the PLA Navy is very very powerful..


* Forty out of 73 destroyers of the A. Burke class have already exceeded 20 years of operational life, which is at least one half.
* So only about 30 or so Arleigh Burke destroyers have less than 20 years of operational life + 3 unfortunate Zumwalts.
* Yes, the USA has ordered new frigates in Europe, but I am of the opinion that the American fleet (surface) will never be more powerful than the Chinese one.



I agree with what you wrote, but somehow I think that the USA is going downstream and they are doing it rapidly..

I don't think the Chinese are far behind in anything with the exception of SSBN (SLBM's also) and SSGN submarines, probably also hypersonic weapons, as well as strategic bombers.

they r also behind in CVNs, ASW means, AWACS,
air transports/tankers, 5th gen. fighters, & LHA/D/LPDs- compare the corresponding US & PRC active inventories. China isn't a close US friend nor ally, but her president & CiC still flies on a B-747, unlike Putin who uses domestic IL-96.

What Russia should really spend money on is the infrastructure to build its economy and that means a merchant marine fleet of civilian vessels that can trade with the rest of the world, and they need a small but powerful navy to ensure its sea lines of communication and trade remain open,..

IMO, for that they'll need a lot bigger surface navy, roughly comparable in tonnage to the Soviet VMF in the '80s.

..on their track record so far I would say they invade Canada or Mexico and blame them for all their problems.

with Panama Canal short of water & bottlenecks forming there, Mexico may get trunkated so a sea level canal is built across the Tehuantepec isthmus; Cuba may get invaded too, for starters!

Tsavo Lion wrote:they r also behind in CVNs, ASW means, AWACS,
air transports/tankers, 5th gen. fighters, & LHA/D/LPDs- compare the corresponding  US & PRC active inventories. China isn't a close US friend nor ally, but her president & CiC still flies on a B-747, unlike Putin who uses domestic IL-96.

The Chinese are behind in CVNs sure. But they have a program to develop them. Arguably they already have the best non-US carrier design being fitted out right now the Type 003.

With regards to the LHA/LHDs, the Chinese have three Type 075 LHDs in service with another being built. They are also rumored to have designed a more advanced Type 076 LHD with capability to launch drones. The US has seven Wasp class and two America class. The Chinese could build more LHDs but I think they are still figuring out how to operate them efficiently. What I think is their weakest link here is lack of advanced and modern aviation component for the Chinese flattops.

Their naval aviation will likely improve though. They have the Z-20F in production which is a modernized clone of the SH-60 Seahawk. The engine used in the Z-20F is also suitable for a heavy attack helicopter that would be carrier capable if they want to design one. They were considering getting the naval Ka-52 from Russia but with the SMO I doubt they will be able to get it anytime soon. They have the J-35 5th generation naval stealth fighter in advanced testing. And they have drones they could likely use in the flattops. Like the GJ-11 Sharp Sword.

They also have eight Type 071 LPDs which have similar displacement to the US San Antonio class. The US has twelve San Antonio class. So the difference isn't that huge. The US is building more of these ships. But the Chinese are also expected to build more Type 071 LPDs in the future.

They have air transports and tankers based on the Y-20. What they lack is the number of such aircraft that the US has.

I think you are wrong in terms of AWACS and ASW though. Chinese AWACS is more modern than US AWACS. They have the KJ-2000, KJ-500, and KJ-200. They have dozens of these aircraft and they all use AESA radar. In the US only the naval E-2D Advanced Hawkeye has AESA radar and is available in limited numbers. They have less E-2Ds than there are KJ-500s which likely have better radar. Chinese ASW is quite decent as well with the KQ-200 ASW aircraft being available, their combat surface ships (corvettes, frigates, and destroyers) all have variable depth sonar and towed array sonar.

They have hundreds of J-20 5th generation fighters and have the J-35 in advanced development.

If u add all the (btw, most r deployable at any given time) AWACS & ASW planes of US, Japan, SK, Taiwan, & NATO, it'll be more than what China has, even if not the latest.
I heard some experts saying that they need to improve ASW capability & skills.
That's why China recently been training with Russia in ASW, learning from them.
The J-20 is still inferior to the F-22; in 2-3 years the 6th gen fighters (already flying by some reports) for USAF/NAF may be ready for IOC.
Also many USCG ships & aircraft can be used to assist the USN/AF in the W. Pacific, so it's not an absolute Chinese superiority just in numbers in this context.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The J-20 is still inferior to the F-22; in 2-3 years the 6th gen fighters (already flying by some reports) for USAF/NAF may be ready for IOC.
Also many USCG ships & aircraft can be used to assist the USN/AF in the W. Pacific, so it's not an absolute Chinese superiority just in numbers in this context.

The J-20 is available in larger numbers than the F-22. And while its engines will be inferior until the WS-15 enters mass production, it has better weapons and more modern electronics and radar than the F-22. It was made like two decades later. For example compare the specs of even the latest AIM-120D (160 km) with the PL-15 (200 - 300 km).

There is also zero chance the 6th gen fighters will enter service in 2-3 years. More like in 2030.
Claims the actual 6th gen prototypes already flew are bollocks and pure vapor.

The Chinese are also working on 6th gen as we speak. It is just that the US has a vast head start on 6th gen engine technology. But likely won't have it in the other aspects. The Chinese are already testing a dual seater J-20 with alleged loyal wingman control capabilities.

And my opinion is that the Chinese will not lag behind the USA.
As Lancelot already mentioned, China is the country that has the most "heavy" fighters of the fifth generation and is the only one that mass-produces these planes.
Of course, Russia should soon start delivering Su-57s in the number of no less than one squadron per year. Very likely a lot more.

I don't believe that the Chinese will be far behind even with the Xian H-20 strategic bomber.
But what I am MOST convinced of is that the USA will drink a bitter pill right when the production of the sixth generation of aircraft starts because I am of the opinion that the Chinese will devastate them with the number of aircraft produced.
And most importantly, China is FAR faster adopting and developing new surface warship platforms than the US and the only exception is still nuclear submarines and nuclear powered aircraft carriers..

This won't change. They will continue to make several pieces a year. Most of the new financial resources will go to 1 million contract soldiers. There is not much left for the air force, let alone the navy.

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