Comparison between Russian, US and Chinese Naval fleets.

Mil.press ranks the Russian Navy at 49% the strength of the US Navy and the Chinese Navy at 93% that of the US Fleet.

https://flot.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness/2019/

Did you look at the article?

How can the Ami navy be stronger if they only got subsonic anti-ship missiles?

..guarding White Sea bastion from hostile subs..

the bastion is in the Barentz & other Arctic seas; the White Sea is used for tests & trials.

They have 10x40 hornets that can each launch 2 harpoon and now two if not more LRASM.

Naval aviation isn't listed in the table. In any case, the USN deck fighters have less range, even if refueled, than Russian & Chinese shore & air launched AShMs.

..They also have 70 very quite sub.

From the site, Russia has 5 SSNs active, 12 in repair,+7 SSGNs active, 2 in repair, & 19 SSKs active, 3 in repair. Total: 48.
The US has 51 SSNs active, 5 in repair, & 4 SSGNs. Total: 59
China has 6 SSNs & 30 SSKs, or 36 total.

How would china be at 93% of US capabilities with no working carrier while US have ten of them,

she has 1 working "combat ready" CV-16 & the CV-17 will be likewise soon.
The VMF & PLAN can reinforce each other across the Arctic with the fleet of NP icebreakers faster than the USN can transfer ships between fleets via Panama/Suez canals or Capes Horn/Good Hope.
Finally, both have bases in Syria, Africa, & L. America.

]You may include naval air force but it's a dozen of su30SM

plus all those former Tu-22Ms transferred to the VKS armed with AshMs & 32 MiG-31s with Kinzhals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Operators

https://iz.ru/979006/dmitrii-boltenkov/morskie-zvezdy-aviatciia-vmf-zavershaet-pervyi-etap-reformirovaniia

SSK are good for protecting land but not attacking carriers or SSN in open sea.

they can strike land targets with LACMs the same way the USN SSNs & SSGNs can.

If carriers are not included then it's a biased article since US navy = carriers.

they r included- use an authotranslator & read it.

Yeah but those land based and air launched missiles need location of the ships so it needs to send a radar at 300km from the carrier so inside an airspace full of hornets and f35. China can't do that right now.

their KJ-2/3000 AWACS r at least as good as the A-50, capable of detecting surface ships at >500 km.
Maximum range of detection of air targets is 470 km (290 mi).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-2000#Design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJ-2000#Specifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50#Specifications_(A-50)

..in the future China can develop its AEW&C on the basis of the Y-20, which means there will be a larger carrier for China’s AEW&C to carry more weapons and equipment, and significantly enhance its detecting ability, endurance and directing and guiding ability.
https://chinanewsstories.com/2013/06/06/chinas-aewc-kj-3000-air-to-surface-combat-aircraft/

China may/will infest the W. Pacific with perhaps 100s of its Maritime Militia 'fishing" boats to detect a CSG.
The Doolittle raid on Japan started earlier after a Japanese fishing boat detected the USS Hornet.

US navy can protect on its own, without the air force, the mainland and project power anywhere the world thanks to hundreds of bases. Russia and China can only make the first.

they don't need to make the 2nd. Eurasia+Africa r self-sufficient in resources/products that can be moved across their littoral SLOCs, inland waterways, & roads.
To defend their interests in Africa & L. America, CBGs r not essential. Instead of supercarriers, Russia has Tu-160M/M2 superbombers & AN-124 supertransports.

Isos wrote:

Hole wrote:How can the Ami navy be stronger if they only got subsonic anti-ship missiles?

They have 10x40 hornets that can each launch 2 harpoon and now two if not more LRASM. They can overwhelm any existing ship. Add to that they use stealth tech on the LRASM that is proved to work and reduce radar detection by great factors.

They also have 70 very quite sub.

Subsonic Harpoon and exocet were used successfully against soviet made boats equiped with ak-630 that is said to be able to deal with such targets easily yet it failed.

Moreover it's not only about missiles but also power projection. US have bases around the world that can be used for sending replainishement and vase land based aviation like p-8 or more fighters. A chinese or russian naval group far away from mainland is on its own and once it runs out of missiles it is fucked.

US also have the numerical advantage. They have more p-3/8 than russian or chinese navies have fighters.

Ah the super quiet sub trope. Yeah, the country where they forgot how to weld sub hulls is number one. In its mind and that of its sycophants.

In case you haven't noticed the 1970s are long gone. And all the original cold war BS on this subject was always ludicrous exaggeration to
start with.

Ditto. Modern SSKs r quieter than SSNs; & the USN CSGs & MEUs regularly transit Med., Red, & SC Seas with plenty of narrows to be ambushed in.

Again we talk about the navies not air forces and militias fishing boats.

true, but the AFs compensate for the smaller # of navy ships; those boats r operated by the naval sailors & have the same or similar functions as the VMF AGI ships:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t5376p400-pla-navy-and-naval-air-force#273105

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnya-class_intelligence_ship

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..guarding White Sea bastion from hostile subs..

the bastion is in the Barentz & other Arctic seas; the White Sea is used for tests & trials......

Correction, Sea of Okhotsk submarine bastion

That place is a missile shooting gallery for coastal units








Can mods move this latest batch of Chinese nonsense to Chinese Navy tread?

We are getting clogged with BS again...

I'm not a Mod, but since the VMF & PLAN r mentioned together, IMO these posts do belong here.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
From the site, Russia has 5 SSNs active, 12 in repair,+7 SSGNs active, 2 in repair, & 19 SSKs active, 3 in repair. Total: 48.
The US has 51 SSNs active, 5 in repair, & 4 SSGNs. Total: 59
China has 6 SSNs & 30 SSKs, or 36 total.
.

I kind of doubt this numbers. China has around 20 active SSKs only with the newest Type-41 class. Add to this the Song and Kilo-class submarines and they should have around 50 SSK. The SSN seems low also, atleast 3 Type 91 subs remains and about 5-7 Type-93 has been commissioned.

franco wrote:Mil.press ranks the Russian Navy at 49% the strength of the US Navy and the Chinese Navy at 93% that of the US Fleet.

https://flot.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness/2019/

Sorry franco, but what the fuck does Russia need 10 carrier groups let alone all the other bullshit the US Navy pisses billions of taxpayers money away on every year?

Keep in mind the US has some real problems itself going forward... they have nothing in the way of frigates at the moment, and their new destroyer of choice is a load of shit too, not to mention their latest aircraft carrier can only carry aircraft and not actually deploy them so it is more like a container ship than anything else.

More to the point it seems their current navigation system is so complex that they are getting in to the habit of running in to cargo ships at night... sounds like there are some fundamental problems going forward... not the least of which the aircraft they are throwing money at seems to be a dog too.

Sorry for what
This or this

Article written by one of the main Russian Navy blogs doing their yearly review of how their Navy stacks up to the Americans... in their opinion. This year was different as they added the Chinese Navy for good measure.

Personally have no opinion on the article, just shared the viewpoint. It did keep the kids occupied for a day

This year was different as they added the Chinese Navy for good measure.

These could be outdated & inaccurate though; according to these sites, 12 active SSNs & ~59 SSKs, or 71 total:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Submarines

There total 68 active subs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang-class_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_091_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_039A_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song-class_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine#Operators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_035_submarine

Mil.press ranks the Russian Navy at 49% the strength of the US Navy and the Chinese Navy at 93% that of the US Fleet.

Then, 49x93/100=the VMF is 45.57% the strength of the Chinese Navy.
Again, this doesn't include naval & all land based aviation.
But, if combined, 49+93=142%; or 142%-100%=42% stronger than the USN. After the Adm. K sails, they'll have 3 CBGs between them.
Even with all the errors, together they r at least as strong as the USN.

Oh yes the obsolete WW2-era understanding of war, where the only thing that matters is absolute numbers and quality doesn't factor in whatsoever.   The Ru Navy has already developed small displacement river boats (Buyan-M) capable of launching 2,500 km ranged cruise missiles and may even see versions capable of launching 4,500 km ranged ones in the future, or ones capable of launching Zircon. That in itself is great, but pales in comparison to containerized systems. The containerized systems developed could theoretically turn any ship (including civilian) with sufficient cargo space in to a surface ship with fire power equal to or greater than a conventional destroyer. It's also theoretically possible to mass produce simple and cheap small to moderately sized floating cargo platforms that could be towed behind ships to increase their offensive fire power by 5 to 6 times without serious retrofit. It's only a matter of time before they develop containerized versions of Iskander-M, S-400/500, Zircon, Kh-101/102, Tor/Buk-M2/Pantsir/S-350, Tornado-G/S, and versions for ECM and sensors.

Isos wrote:

Then, 49x93/100=the VMF is 45.57% the strength of the Chinese Navy.

something wrong here. If they are 49% of US navy then it can't be 45% of a weaker navy than US.

My mistake! The pennant list ratio (excluding all SSBNs) is:
the VMF is 95% of the USN & the PLAN 149% of the USN.
https://flot.com/nowadays/structure/techreadiness/2019/

So, with these #s, the VMF is still < than 1/2 of the PLAN.

The containerized systems developed could theoretically turn any ship (including civilian) with sufficient cargo space in to a surface ship with fire power equal to or greater than a conventional destroyer. It's also theoretically possible to mass produce simple and cheap small to moderately sized floating cargo platforms that could be towed behind ships to increase their offensive firepower by 5 to 6 times without serious retrofit.

their NP icebreakers can also carry target designator helos/UAVs & be armed with/tow barges with dozens of CMs. They can also recharge SSK's batteries.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Oh yes the obsolete WW2-era understanding of war, where the only thing that matters is absolute numbers and quality doesn't factor in whatsoever.   The Ru Navy has already developed small displacement river boats (Buyan-M) capable of launching 2,500 km ranged cruise missiles and may even see versions capable of launching 4,500 km ranged ones in the future, or ones capable of launching Zircon. That in itself is great, but pales in comparison to containerized systems. The containerized systems developed could theoretically turn any ship (including civilian) with sufficient cargo space in to a surface ship with fire power equal to or greater than a conventional destroyer. It's also theoretically possible to mass produce simple and cheap small to moderately sized floating cargo platforms that could be towed behind ships to increase their offensive fire power by 5 to 6 times without serious retrofit. It's only a matter of time before they develop containerized versions of Iskander-M, S-400/500, Zircon, Kh-101/102, Tor/Buk-M2/Pantsir/S-350, Tornado-G/S, and versions for ECM and sensors.

Takes the concept of Q ships to a whole new level. Suddenly that innocent cargo ship the USN is about to check out looses of half a dozen AShM.

49% of a navy with carriers designed for 3rd world suppression operations. This estimate becomes utterly worthless if the
assessment is US navy vs. Russian navy.