Thresholds Of Prc Military Power

[futon]

On 2/29/2024 at 9:58 AM, futon said:

What might be Type 076 construction has been spotted. If so, it's form will be clear by the end of the year.

And launched.

 

[futon]

On 1/23/2023 at 10:20 PM, futon said:

Since then two above post eight months ago. The speculated total of 38 Type 54A ended up becoming 40. What seemed to be 5 new Type 52D destroyers in production seems certain now with another 5 already in the works, and apparantly word on a further 2 more. A 9th Type 55 destroyer seems to be in the work, which makes the "goal of 16" seem realistic now assuming the 9th to be the first of a second batch of eight as all of the first batch of eight Type 55s enter service. Seems to be a 3rd Type 901 AOE in the works with word on two more, time will tell. 

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/054A型导弹护卫舰, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/052D型导弹驱逐舰, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/055型导弹驱逐舰, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/901型综合补给舰

Another year has passed with more ships to add.

40 Type 54A frigates in service. Looks like 6 more being made.

1 Type 54B frigate in service. 1 more to enter service not long from now.

26 Type 52D destroyers in service. 12 more at various stages (sea trials, fitting out, dry dock assembly). Total accountable at 38 hulls. 

8 Type 55 destroyers in service. 6 more at various stages. 14 hulls total.

Of course the older but probably still viable enough for 10 or so more years, the 6 Type 52C destroyers.

 

Modern Surface combat ships in PLAN service now and (in a few years)

Frigates: 41 (48)

Destroyers: 40 (58)

 

[TrustMe]

And if you think about it China keeps all these ships close to home whilist the USN is spread about the whole wide world ocean.

[futon]

On 2/24/2025 at 5:34 AM, TrustMe said:

And if you think about it China keeps all these ships close to home whilist the USN is spread about the whole wide world ocean.

Here are the large surface combat ships in the US Pacific Fleet.  The number in parenthesis is the destroyer and cruiser count combined. This list is extracted from this webpage that's undated but probably reasonably up to date: https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Ships/#:~:text=USS Boxer (LHD 4),Johnson (DDG 1002)

Yokosuka, Japan (12)

USS Benfold (DDG 65)
USS Dewey (DDG 105)
USS Higgins (DDG 76)
USS Howard (DDG 83)
USS John Finn (DDG 113)
USS McCampbell (DDG 85)
USS Milius (DDG 69)
USS Preble (DDG 88)
USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115)
USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114)
USS Shoup (DDG 86)
USS Robert Smalls (CG 62)

 

Pearl Harbor, HI (9)

USS Carl M. Levin (DDG 120)
USS Daniel Inouye (DDG 118)
USS Decatur (DDG 73)
USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121)
USS Hopper (DDG 70)
USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112)
USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108)
USS William P Lawrence (DDG 110)
USS Shiloh (CG 67)

 

Everett, WA (7)

USS Barry (DDG 52)
USS Gridley (DDG 101)
USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53)
USS John S. McCain (DDG 56)
USS Kidd (DDG 100)
USS Sampson (DDG 102)
USS Cape St George (CG 71)

 

San Diego, CA (23)

USS Chafee (DDG 90)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93)
USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54)
USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62)
USS Halsey (DDG 97)
USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125)
USS Lenah Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG 123)
USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001)
USS Momsen (DDG 92)
USS Mustin (DDG 89)
USS O'Kane (DDG 77)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60)
USS Pinckney (DDG 91)
USS Russell (DDG 59)
USS Spruance (DDG 111)
USS Sterett (DDG 104)
USS Stethem (DDG 63)
USS Stockdale (DDG 106)
USS Princeton (CG 59)
USS Lake Erie (CG 70)
USS Chosin (CG 65)
USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001)
USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000)

 

Pre-Commissioning Unit (1)

PCU Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002)

 

12+9+7+23+1 = total of 46

[futon]

To add in JMSDF dedicated surface combat ship, based off of capabilities, while internally classified as "DD", in nowadays backdrop, some classes are really frigate level. So the classes will be sorted as such. There are corvette level stuff as well but not included.

 

Older DDs and Frigates: 34 (perhaps up to 40 later)

Abukuma (6 - all out by 2027)
Asagiri (8 - 1 to 3 out by 2027)
Murasame (9)
Takanami (5)
Mogami (6 with 6 more soon)
Mogami successor (12 soon/later)

 

Destroyers: 14 (16 soon)

Akizuki (4)
Asahi (2)

Kongo (4)
Atago (2)
Maya (2)
12,000ton (2 soon)

Edited February 25 by futon

[futon]

As with the South Korean Navy, some of their "DD"s are really more of a frigate compared to Burke or Type 52D. 

Frigate-level DDs and Frigates: 26 (30ish soon)

Ulsan (2 - phase out soon)
Incheon (6)
Daegu (8)
Chungnam (1 - 5 more soon/later)
Kwanggaeto the Great (3)
Chungmugong Yi Sunshin (6)

 

Destroyers: 4 (6 soon)

Sejong the Great (4 - 2 more soon)

 

 

[TrustMe]

Great find thanks Futon. 

[futon]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Great find thanks Futon. 

Sure thing. ROK has recently made a joint-statement with the US and Japan related to peace across the Taiwan Strait. So, depending on DPRK, they may be positioning themselves to be able to contribute to a Taiwan contingency scenerio.

[RETAC21]

This comparison is apples to apples, which is not the correct way to compare naval strength.

China is producing escorts needed to form TF around its capital and supply ships, plus protect its rather large coast. The US doesn't need to protect its coasts (yet) while both Korea and Japan are building its fleets mainly for commerce protection. Taiwan is missing on this too.

If you want to check the threshold of naval power, compare capital ships (carriers, amphibious ships, large supply ships) with escorts (4-6) vs enemy submarines and the picture changes quite a lot:

PRC

3 aircraft carriers -> 18 escorts

5 LHDs -> 30 escorts

11 Underway replenishment ships (4 escorts) -> 44 escorts

A total requirement of 92, so the 81 modern escorts are still too few to get the seagoing force properly defended (and yes, older ships are being modernised)

Against this, the US and allies line up:

Taiwan: 2 SSK

South Korea: 21 SSK

Japan: 25 SSK

US: 23 SSN + 2 SSGN

73 submarines vs 81 escorts is not a good ratio for the PRC, are we are not looking at coastal forces, ground based missiles, mines, etc.

[futon]

I agree that apples to apples is not correct. 

A full examination would have to include even the other services, and scenerio case with factors about country's populace willingness to deal with economic breakdown result is, a lot more difficult and a lot more likely for an analysis error. 

[Rick]

26 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

This comparison is apples to apples, which is not the correct way to compare naval strength.

China is producing escorts needed to form TF around its capital and supply ships, plus protect its rather large coast. The US doesn't need to protect its coasts (yet) while both Korea and Japan are building its fleets mainly for commerce protection. Taiwan is missing on this too.

If you want to check the threshold of naval power, compare capital ships (carriers, amphibious ships, large supply ships) with escorts (4-6) vs enemy submarines and the picture changes quite a lot:

PRC

3 aircraft carriers -> 18 escorts

5 LHDs -> 30 escorts

11 Underway replenishment ships (4 escorts) -> 44 escorts

A total requirement of 92, so the 81 modern escorts are still too few to get the seagoing force properly defended (and yes, older ships are being modernised)

Against this, the US and allies line up:

Taiwan: 2 SSK

South Korea: 21 SSK

Japan: 25 SSK

US: 23 SSN + 2 SSGN

73 submarines vs 81 escorts is not a good ratio for the PRC, are we are not looking at coastal forces, ground based missiles, mines, etc.

There is the Chinese submarine force which could act as an A.S.W. force. I think they have about 12 SSN and about 50 SS. 

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, Rick said:

There is the Chinese submarine force which could act as an A.S.W. force. I think they have about 12 SSN and about 50 SS. 

I remain skeptical of their actual ASW capabilities, they have been prototyping SSNs for a long time and have withdrawn the first generation boats, seems the current fleet stands at 6+8, I believe the first Type 093 going to be withdrawn (or become training boats) when the new boats finally enter service.

That they have gone for serial production since 2022 implies that they are satisfied with the 3rd generation, but none is yet in service... so they are still working out the bugs.

Regarding SSK, the fleet is numerous but stable, they seem to be focused on anti-access to the first island chain more than ASW.

The PRC is still short on MPAs, with the latest Y-9FQ entering service in 2023 or so.

[futon]

For nuclear attack subs

They have Type 93, Type 93A, Type 93B and Type 95.

Type 93 (2) 2006 and 2008

Type 93A (4) 2012 through to 2018

Type 93B (new but word on 8 in the works already at various stages: sea trials, fitting out, etc)

Type 95 (new class, word is 8 in the works but less concrete info than Type 93B but two in construction)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/09III型核潜艇

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/09V型核潜艇

So.. for total count of nuclear attack subs

Now (6)

Soon (10ish)

Later (14 to 22)

 

 

 

For Nuclear ballistic submarines, they have the noisey diving Type 94s and  Type 94As, the much improved Type 96. 

Type 94 (2) 2007 and 2009

Type 94A (4) 2011, 2014, 2019, 2021

Type 96 in the works, none commissioned yet.

 

In both nuclear sub types, a few older stuff but I didn't include those.

Edited February 28 by futon

[glenn239]

The Type 39 SSK's are ones to keep an eye on.  They're cheaper to build than nuke boats, and once lithium batteries are deployed, their range and capabilities expand greatly, as endurance is much greater and recharge is only a fraction of the previous time it took.

[RETAC21]

52 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Type 39 SSK's are ones to keep an eye on.  They're cheaper to build than nuke boats, and once lithium batteries are deployed, their range and capabilities expand greatly, as endurance is much greater and recharge is only a fraction of the previous time it took.

Li batteries for submarines is not something that is easy to develop, only Japan currently has the technology to do so safely. A runaway battery in a sub = lost boat so navies are being quite careful around them.

The PRC is not going to put Li batteries on the Type 039 without extensive proofing, of which there's no evidence.

@futon the Type 093 is not up to scratch, if the PRC is going to build up its submarine flotillas, the older boats are likely to the withdrawn around the 20-30 year mark, more than anything to have crews for the new subs. Type 095 remains rumor despite lots of noise in Chinese forums.

[RETAC21]

Temu Mulberry is ready:

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 2/28/2025 at 7:03 PM, RETAC21 said:

Li batteries for submarines is not something that is easy to develop, only Japan currently has the technology to do so safely. A runaway battery in a sub = lost boat so navies are being quite careful around them.

The PRC is not going to put Li batteries on the Type 039 without extensive proofing, of which there's no evidence.

@futon the Type 093 is not up to scratch, if the PRC is going to build up its submarine flotillas, the older boats are likely to the withdrawn around the 20-30 year mark, more than anything to have crews for the new subs. Type 095 remains rumor despite lots of noise in Chinese forums.

I dont even trust the damn things to left overnight in my RC tanks. They are an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Temu Mulberry is ready:

 

Not as flexible as mulberry, but an awful lot easier to emplace, and the best solution ive seen in the last 80 years to give them full credit.

[RETAC21]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not as flexible as mulberry, but an awful lot easier to emplace, and the best solution ive seen in the last 80 years to give them full credit.

Problem I see with them is that they are mightily vulnerable to IRBMs 

[Ol Paint]

Build in large numbers and expect losses, is a viable strategy.

The fleet should provide air defense cover at least until there's enough of beach/bridgehead for GBAD to take over.

Doug 

[glenn239]

On 3/13/2025 at 6:46 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont even trust the damn things to left overnight in my RC tanks. They are an accident waiting to happen.

 

Try sailing around in a diesel submarine having to noisily recharge the batteries for hours a day in wartime with USN hunter killer submarines skulking about.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, granted, but that hardly is going to commend themselves as a solution if the damn things are catching fire and killing people in peacetime. Its like the Soviet navy using HTP as torpedo fuel. Yes, as a wartime expedient that made sense. But not for the cold war, and surely not for 9 years after the cold war when it resulted in the lossof the Kursk. Does anyone one defend that decision process now? No, because they withdrew all the HTP torpedos.

 

Edited March 15 by Stuart Galbraith

[glenn239]

21 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, granted, but that hardly is going to commend themselves as a solution if the damn things are catching fire and killing people in peacetime. 

Depends on the peacetime accident rate, the severity of such accidents, and the likelihood of war.

[RETAC21]

On 3/15/2025 at 2:59 PM, glenn239 said:

Try sailing around in a diesel submarine having to noisily recharge the batteries for hours a day in wartime with USN hunter killer submarines skulking about.

And, in your nul experience, how many hours does it take and how noisy is to use a diesel to charge batteries?

I am asking because that's the way the Japanese (the only ones that have advanced Li-ion batteries on submarines, you know...) operate.

You seem to believe that these batteries are magically recharged, how?

[glenn239]

You're thinking the Chinese are too fucking stupid to know what the advantages are to mastering lithium battery technology?  Fewer and faster recharges.