Jump to content
tanknet.org

Water Dragons Of The Middle Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 367
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

A little recent footage of Type 52D destroyer Qiqihar and Type 52DL destroyer Tangshan doing some training in the Yellow Sea for seven days along with Type 901 AOE Hulun Hu.

 

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the Japanese navy has to be getting concerned at this point.

That's a lot of hardware coming on line and the USN hasn't exactly been covering itself with glory here lately.

On the other hand, the USN has a sort of "ram first and ask questions later" pattern going.  Maybe I am too pessimistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I'd say the Japanese navy has to be getting concerned at this point.

That's a lot of hardware coming on line and the USN hasn't exactly been covering itself with glory here lately.

On the other hand, the USN has a sort of "ram first and ask questions later" pattern going.  Maybe I am too pessimistic?

There's been enough to show that Japan needs to long-term plan for an unavailable US scenerio. That's a full plate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I'd say the Japanese navy has to be getting concerned at this point.

That's a lot of hardware coming on line and the USN hasn't exactly been covering itself with glory here lately.

On the other hand, the USN has a sort of "ram first and ask questions later" pattern going.  Maybe I am too pessimistic?

I'm actually more concerned by South Korea's aggressive naval expansion plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

USN 4,600,000 tons 

PLAN 2,000,000 tons

RN (including RFA) 800,000 tons

JMSDF 680,000 tons

ROKN 230,000 tons

 

Pretty sure the USN and PLAN numbers include their respective RFA-like commissioned vessels. JMSDF does, as well as ROKN. If the RFA was factored out, the RN would be at about 400,000. 

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the RFA means the RN can operate on the deep ocean. That is not quite so common as most European navies claim. 

Besides, even the RFA's have a proven utility in light amphibious operations. Something the RN seems to be building upon by developing a new range of light amphibious assault warships.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/royal-navy-marines-snipers-rfa-4576800

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but the RFA means the RN can operate on the deep ocean. That is not quite so common as most European navies claim. 

Besides, even the RFA's have a proven utility in light amphibious operations. Something the RN seems to be building upon by developing a new range of light amphibious assault warships.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/royal-navy-marines-snipers-rfa-4576800

Well yeah of course. When I first looked it up, I noticed just the RN number but looked around a bit more and find RFA and so looked into that to see its composition and yeah, it was interesting to see the make up of its replenishment fleet. With four Tide-class (39,000 ton), two Wave-class (31,500 ton), the Fort Victoria (33,675 tons), and two older Fort Rosalie (23,384). That makes about 300,000 tons in fleet replenishment. Although those numbers are full displacement I think. Something to be careful about with comparing tonnage. But still certainly an important arm for global reach and it looks like enough to support a larger number of surface combat ships in the RN. The JMSDF had no expectation for global reach until only recently so it evolved with a focus just regionally and so has far less replenishment. Just two Mashu-class (25,000) and three Towada-class (12,100) making just 86,300 tons of replenishment ships. The funny thing is that if RN and RFA wasn't organized separately, then I wouldn't feel the need to indicate both. If I just said RN, then there is a technicality error sitting there. I could have elaborated it I guess. Another factor is of course how much the things get used. But the original motivation in posting those was to show how small the ROKN still is comparatively. If bluntly put, I don't see them getting past 400,000 tons post 2030. On an extension thought on the topic of replenishment, looking at the PLAN shows how they really grown in size. Two Type 904-class (10,975 tons), three Type 904A (15,000 tons), two Type 903 (20,530 tons), seven (but one more on the way)Type 903A (23,000 tons), a Type 908 (37,000 tons), and two Type 901-class (48,000 tons).. making 402,010 tons of replenishment ships, soon to be 425,010 tons.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...