Chinese Navy potential threat for the Russian Navy

walle83 wrote:

The 9 Yasen will take 10-15 years to complete (if ever), number of Tu-22M is about 60 at most, yes 9 Akulas in total but the queastion was how many was active and that number is 4. And "soon" a relative term, wouldnt hold my breath for all 9 to return.

Isos wrote:

walle83 wrote:

The 9 Yasen will take 10-15 years to complete (if ever), number of Tu-22M is about 60 at most, yes 9 Akulas in total but the queastion was how many was active and that number is 4. And "soon" a relative term, wouldnt hold my breath for all 9 to return.

7 out of those 9 Yasen have been laid down, the last one was started in 2017. They need around 7~8 years to build one so they will get all the seven before 2025.

The other 2 are planed for 2020 so, if they increase the speed, they can get it before 2026.

Tu-22M can launch kh-32 well out of chinese AD range. A group of 60 Tu-22M can carry 60-180 missiles (most likely 2 per aircraft so 120). Chinese will struggle hit them because they fly at an altitude of 40km and dive on the target at mach 4.

Akula are there and they have 9 of them with even some in reserve they may lease to india. Even without modernization they are better than any chinese ship. They will very soon present the "husky class" which will replace them and it should be cheaper and faster to build than yasen.

GarryB wrote:How many of those modern subs does China have?

The Saudis had state of the art equipment in Yemen... but it didn't perform that well because of the tactics used and likely skill level of those on the front lines was not high.

No Depends on the Akula if it's from the first series Modern Chinese Attack Subs are better then those, Not all Akula's are the same or even.

Another Myth that keeps going on in this forum.

Isos wrote:Yasen are build in parrallele not one after the other.

China build many ships but do not much with them. They have no experience.

No Depends on the Akula if it's from the first series Modern Chinese Attack Subs are better then those, Not all Akula's are the same or even.

Another Myth that keeps going on in this forum.

Type 093 is better than akula ?

Russia has 70 years of experience with subs and not only building them but also operating in any waters in the world. Akulas arethe vest USSR produced. Specially the Akula 2 and 3.

China keeps all its navy near the borders and has build made only 2 classes of SSN and two SSBN in very small quantities. They have no experience building them or designing them. It's not because they were build after akulas that they are better.

So in your mind they will have several submarines in trails at the same time? I doubt they have the resources or the experinced manpower for that.

Like i always say, its not about what the PLA have today that is the issue, its what they will have in 5-10 years. Speed of development is the real issue.

Isos wrote:

So in your mind they will have several submarines in trails at the same time? I doubt they have the resources or the experinced manpower for that.

Can you go on wikipedia and check the dates ?

They won't get all of them at the same moment. The first is in service. The second in test. The third almost finished. The forth is being build and by the time the third finishes its test, it will be finished and sent for tests (when the 3rd goes into service) ... at this rythm they can have all of the 7 in service or at least completed by 2025.

Like i always say, its not about what the PLA have today that is the issue, its what they will have in 5-10 years. Speed of development is the real issue.

They already have a huge amount of ships. They can't just produce them indefinitly. The thing is they don't use them and the day they start using them like US and paying bases around the world, the budget will grow up at US navy's budget level and they will feel it. Just refueling so much ships is f*cking expensive, add to that increasing cost of life, increasing salaries for their sailors ... and don't forget prices of weapons.

Having a ship with 120 VLS is good but good weapons are also expensive and when you multiply by 120 then by number of ships in service, it grows very fast specially that weapons can't be kept for ever. They have expire dates and need replacement.

Isos wrote:What plan ? They buy destroyers for coast guard missions. Their SSBN can't leave the coast because they are immediatly tracked by japan/USA/south korea. They don't protect their allies. We saw that during Venezuelan crisis or iranian, where were type 55 to protect them from US ? Type 52 C/D are also impressive and in big numbers, why didn't they send them to Venezuela or iran ? Or in Lybia when nato destroyed it ?

They have plenty of investments in those countries and don't protect them. They have the second largest navy. Even india sent a destroyer in the Persian gulf when tensions appeared to protect its civilian ships.

Russia's speed boats and corvettes managed to protect perfectly SAA and saved Assad.

The Kirov from the 1980s is the equivalent of about 96 S-300 missiles, which is the equivalent 24 launch vehicles... so about four batteries of S-300 plus 192 TOR missiles... which is basically the equivalent of 24 TOR launcher vehicles, which is another four batteries of TOR with 6 vehicles per battery... and that is ignoring the 8 Kashtan batteries... each of which has 32 Pantsir missiles and two 30mm gatling guns... and they are not just sitting in a field on their own... they are a fully integrated air defence network on one platform.

Isos wrote:

The Kirov from the 1980s is the equivalent of about 96 S-300 missiles, which is the equivalent 24 launch vehicles... so about four batteries of S-300 plus 192 TOR missiles... which is basically the equivalent of 24 TOR launcher vehicles, which is another four batteries of TOR with 6 vehicles per battery... and that is ignoring the 8 Kashtan batteries... each of which has 32 Pantsir missiles and two 30mm gatling guns... and they are not just sitting in a field on their own... they are a fully integrated air defence network on one platform.

That's true only for Peater the great which is the last to be build. It has 48 fort and 48 fort M (PMU-2) with 1 enegagement radar each.

Other Kirov have also two engagement radars but for the older Fort system only which limits the number of missiles being intercepted in the same time if they come from many different directions. They don't have tor missiles. Only Naval osa and ak-630 for close protection. They would be rather outdated by today's standard and would be easily chalanged by supersonic missiles.

Hopfully they upgrade two of them.

GarryB wrote:Well their new 20K ton cruiser designs and their new CVN is going to need a new nuclear power plant... would this be an opportunity to avoid the problems the Americans have had with their new Ford class vessels with all sorts of new stuff and all sorts of new stuff that doesn't work... perhaps replace the old nuclear reactor on the Kirov with a new design... it should be powerful enough to get rid of the complicated combined propulsion system and just be a nuke powered ship... they can fit it to a real ship and put it through its paces for real... they will have problems but better to sort them out now but potentially get a new cruiser out of it than scrap it and hope things go well when the new untested NPP goes in to the new ships.

For the same reason I would look at replacing the Granit launchers and all their bits and pieces with an experimental EM Cat system for launching AWACS type aircraft... the loss of 12 missiles would be no big deal as new model small Zircon can be carried under the Su-33s wing, so there would be no loss in fire power... an Su-33 could probably carry up to 5 of the new small Zircons per aircraft which should more than compensate for the loss of 12 Granits... three planes and you have more missiles... better situational awareness with proper AWACS and extended range and much higher missile speed and the ability to launch the attack probably from 1,000km away from the carrier in any direction...

It will be expensive, but it is money you are spending in Russian ship yards on Russian products and Russian technology... and when you get it all right it makes later projects easier and cheaper too.

ussia never had a huge shipbuilding industry, neither a military one or a civilian one... except possibly for submarines which they used to have enormous numbers of. wrote:

Arrow wrote:

But the USSR had. He built large destroyers and even aircraft carriers at the end of its existence. The USSR's fleet was incomparably larger than that of Russia. The same shipbuilding industry.