PLAN and USN 2006 and 2007 comparisons

Originally Posted by alwaysfresh

So the PLAN has some new ships and plans to continue building certain other ships, but I think something is missing to get a good understanding of the developments.

To really understand how far the PLAN has developed I think it is necessary to compare PLAN with the most advance and largest navy in the world the USN.

Well, in the last five or six years, the PLAN has built or purchased something like a total of 78 new major combatant vessels and the US navy has built 42.

During that same period, the US Navy decommissioned 46 major combatants (many of them with between 10-15 years service life reminaing in them) for a net loss of four major combatants. I am not sure how many major combatants the PLAN has decommissioned, but I do not believe it is many, if any.

The growth trend is clearly with the PLAN.

Well, part of the US navy's lack of growth is more a matter of not having a major surface combatant to produce. We have plenty of ships. When the next generation of our vessels start getting produced is when that will be most apt.

To really understand how far the PLAN has developed I think it is necessary to compare PLAN with the most advance and largest navy in the world the USN.

well that exctly what we should NOT do and try to avoid it in all possiple occasions. PLANs new accustions are mostly focused to tranform it from obsolete Soviet 30's way of thinking into something more modern one. Bulk of its new vessels serves one main goal: To gain vessels that presents current trend and doctrines to help transform the centralised led coastal defence corps into world class navy. They are mented to be the first link of long going continuty in the farseeable future, set standards and gain experience.

Only seccondly comes their fighting ability (wich in ship by ship basis is always secondary compared fleet by fleet level). They arent supposed to suprass USN equipment nor stand against them in manhanian way of thinking. The true power they posess are really in the fleet level as they now, first time in PLAN history will able it to gain that has evolped by the neglect of naval matters in chinese geostrategical thinking.

People should give rest to childish rambles of how Yj-83 beats Harpoon in range and speed = Chinese supermacy will triumph in the battle field, and start seeing the bigger picture of what the new desings really are.

And in general rule, compare ones stuff with ones own needs and docrines, not against its opponent in arms race manner

Originally Posted by Vlad Plasmius

Well, part of the US navy's lack of growth is more a matter of not having a major surface combatant to produce. We have plenty of ships. When the next generation of our vessels start getting produced is when that will be most apt.

But the US Navy is building new classes.

The new flight Burkes are being produced at a rate of two a year, the new Virginia Class subs are being built, the new San Antonio Class LPDs are being built, the new Litoral Combat Ships are being built, the first new CVN-21 class carrier is being built (inintial steel cut has already occured).

The US is building newer class vessels, they are just building them slower than the PLAN and they are decomissioning more. That is where the disparity in growth is occuring.

Sooner or later we will see the PLAN decommission its older frigates and destroyers and then the disparity will not be nearly so stark.

The USN is planning a 313 ship Navy by 2013. The mainstays of this fleet will be CSG, LCS, Arliegh Burke DDGs, Virginia & Seawolf class SSNs.

Despite cutbacks in manning and ships today's USN is planning for the future.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27827

Navy Reaching for New Desired End Strength by 2008
Story Number: NNS070215-02
Release Date: 2/15/2007 9:45:00 AM

From Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- With the Navy’s Fleet of the future established, and seeing cost-savings platforms being delivered to the Fleet, the Navy announced Feb. 5 the plan to reach an end strength number of 328,4000 for active duty and 67,800 for reserves in 2008, reaching a floor of approximately 322,000 for active duty and 68,000 for reserves in 2013.

“Now that we have future fleet defined – 313 ships and about 3,800 aircraft – we are able to define the work and identify requirements,” said Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John C. Harvey Jr. “I’m confident that our end strength number is right, and that the number translates to the capabilities we need to do the missions that the nation expects the Navy to do.”

By partnering with the Navy enterprises, there is a much better understanding of the work requirement across platforms and jobs, at sea and ashore. In addition, savings from BRAC decision 10 years ago, and the delivery of manpower saving platforms to the fleet are making a difference in how many Sailors are needed to do the job. As platforms change – retiring older, manpower and maintenance intensive ships and aircraft - requirements for Sailors are changing.

“Our future carriers will have about 1,000 less Sailors required between the ship and airwing to deliver the same capability of today’s carriers,” Harvey said. “In our 313-ship Navy, you have significant changes in platforms themselves that enable downsizing to continue without giving away capability or making a 24-hour workday for the Sailor.”

Even while end strength comes down over the next year until it steadies in 2013, the Navy’s recruiting missions will grow. With natural attrition and retention figures, as well as the need for an increasingly skilled workforce, a strong recruiting helps to shape a stronger Navy of the future.

“We learned a lesson in the 90’s that we cannot lower recruiting when we’re downsizing, because we must pay attention to how we shape the force of the future,” Harvey added. “We had historic re-enlistment rates after 9/11, but that was a retention rate that couldn’t be sustained over the long haul. This is part of sustaining the force. We want to keep the mid-grade petty officer and the right skill sets who really deliver the goods for us at sea, in terms of the blend of the experience, leadership, capability.”

Seeing the end strength go down until 2013 does not mean that there will be large cuts in today’s enlisted force.

“You are going to have a career with us. We may have rating conversions, but nobody is going to lose a career who has the capability to serve, who wants to serve, and who should serve,” Harvey stated.

Shaping the Reserve Component is a focus for this year, as their sustained contributions have been an operational reserve for the active component. Restructuring the Reserves includes looking for GWOT heavy ratings and individuals with a level of experience.

For related news, visit the Chief of Naval Personnel Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cnp/.

Im not sure how the PLAN leaders stack up, but in my opinion the higher ups in the US Navy are either morons or polictical errand boys, maybe both. Their not smart enough to be Yes Men anymore. Some of the new platforms should do well but much of the current US Navy is pure hype. The Base Closing Commission proved that when the US Navy decided to look at reopening an air station it closed in 1999. They guys are absolute fools. There are no Admirals from the ASW,E/C-2 and Helo communities, everyone is part of the infamous Super Hornet Mafia. I think a F-18E/F would be mencemeat if it ran into PLAAF or PLAN Flankers. The PLAN is on an intelligence modernization program. In the US Navy, for the most part the programs are simply political agendas. The fact that the Super Hornet lacks the speed and range of the aircraft it replaces and that there is zero ASW capbility on the carriers shows a mixture of arrogance and stupidity. A Marine friend explained to me in a joke, "What's the best way to get air superiory? Me having my ground troops on your airfield". Smart. It seems to be, that when one compares the modernization programs of the PLAN and USN the PLAN seems to be doing it correctly. As it stands, much of the USN leadership is suspect or lacks credibilty. Admirals and Captains are barely out of the Pentagon before they get sweet jobs in defence contractors or run for office. As far as the PLAN is concerned, I do not see any programs which are being developed purely to line someone's pocket. Sure there must be waste and politics but I see the PLAN program as a credible defence position.

Originally Posted by Raven

Im not sure how the PLAN leaders stack up, but in my opinion the higher ups in the US Navy are either morons or polictical errand boys, maybe both. Their not smart enough to be Yes Men anymore. Some of the new platforms should do well but much of the current US Navy is pure hype. The Base Closing Commission proved that when the US Navy decided to look at reopening an air station it closed in 1999. They guys are absolute fools. There are no Admirals from the ASW,E/C-2 and Helo communities, everyone is part of the infamous Super Hornet Mafia. I think a F-18E/F would be mencemeat if it ran into PLAAF or PLAN Flankers. The PLAN is on an intelligence modernization program. In the US Navy, for the most part the programs are simply political agendas. The fact that the Super Hornet lacks the speed and range of the aircraft it replaces and that there is zero ASW capbility on the carriers shows a mixture of arrogance and stupidity. A Marine friend explained to me in a joke, "What's the best way to get air superiory? Me having my ground troops on your airfield". Smart. It seems to be, that when one compares the modernization programs of the PLAN and USN the PLAN seems to be doing it correctly. As it stands, much of the USN leadership is suspect or lacks credibilty. Admirals and Captains are barely out of the Pentagon before they get sweet jobs in defence contractors or run for office. As far as the PLAN is concerned, I do not see any programs which are being developed purely to line someone's pocket. Sure there must be waste and politics but I see the PLAN program as a credible defence position.

IMHO, you paint with far too broad a brush.

While the US Navy has downsized and while many of us are not happy...even somewhat alarmed...by some of the decisions...all in all the US Navy is still the most potent and powerful Naval force afloat...by far and away.

The F-18E/F is a superb aircraft. It is unfortunate that it does not have the range or speed of the F-14, and that the AIM-54 is gone. But the AIM-120D is getting very close to the range of the AIM-54 Phoenix, and it will be a better all round missile against bombers, fighters, and certain missiles. And the Hornet is more multi-role. I do not believe you will find anyone who would ever say, including PLAN and PLAAF fighter pilots, that a USN Superhornets in the hands of the superbly trained pilots the USN has would be mince meat against the PLAN or PLAAF inventory...or any other for that matter, outside of perhaps the F-22.

...and the new EA-18 Growlers (based on the Superhornet) are going to be superb replacements for the Prowlers...able to keep pace with any strike force they accompany and able to defend themselves if need be.

No US carrier is out there without ASW coverage. Decommissioning and standing down the Spruances and the Vikings is, IMHO, a big mistake, but the Burkes, the Sea Hawks, and the accompanying SSNs to each CSG make for a very potent and capable ASW defense just the same...and they are very good at what they do. I would rather have overkill three times over in the ASW environment, and the Sprucances and the Vikings helped provide that...but to say that there is no ASW defense is way off the mark. Other Navies in the world, including the PLAN, would give almost anything to have anything close to what the USN deploys, even without the Spruances and Vikings.

Finally, not all of the top brass by a long shot is clueless or just political whack jobs. The continuation of the Virginia class, the introduction of the LCS, the building of CVN-78 and the follow on in that new class, the ongoing Burkes, the San Antonios, etc., etc., although not being built in the numbers I would like to see, attest to good planning and forsight, and are just the same very potent vessels and well ahead in technology, in maintainability, in logistics, in most armaments, and in technology of the foes they are likely to face.

Anyhow...just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

IMHO, you paint with far too broad a brush.

While the US Navy has downsized and while many of us are not happy...even somewhat alarmed...by some of the decisions...all in all the US Navy is still the most potent and powerful Naval force afloat...by far and away.

The F-18E/F is a superb aircraft. It is unfortunate that it does not have the range or speed of the F-14, and that the AIM-54 is gone. But the AIM-120D is getting very close to the range of the AIM-54 Phoenix, and it will be a better all round missile against bombers, fighters, and certain missiles. And the Hornet is more multi-role. I do not believe you will find anyone who would ever say, including PLAN and PLAAF fighter pilots, that a USN Superhornets in the hands of the superbly trained pilots the USN has would be mince meat against the PLAN or PLAAF inventory...or any other for that matter, outside of perhaps the F-22.

...and the new EA-18 Growlers (based on the Superhornet) are going to be superb replacements for the Prowlers...able to keep pace with any strike force they accompany and able to defend themselves if need be.

No US carrier is out there without ASW coverage. Decommissioning and standing down the Spruances and the Vikings is, IMHO, a big mistake, but the Burkes, the Sea Hawks, and the accompanying SSNs to each CSG make for a very potent and capable ASW defense just the same...and they are very good at what they do. I would rather have overkill three times over in the ASW environment, and the Sprucances and the Vikings helped provide that...but to say that there is no ASW defense is way off the mark. Other Navies in the world, including the PLAN, would give almost anything to have anything close to what the USN deploys, even without the Spruances and Vikings.

Finally, not all of the top brass by a long shot is clueless or just political whack jobs. The continuation of the Virginia class, the introduction of the LCS, the building of CVN-78 and the follow on in that new class, the ongoing Burkes, the San Antonios, etc., etc., although not being built in the numbers I would like to see, attest to good planning and forsight, and are just the same very potent vessels and well ahead in technology, in maintainability, in logistics, in most armaments, and in technology of the foes they are likely to face.

Anyhow...just my opinion.

Well, I do think that super hornet is what it is. It's not the best platform out there, but because USN is using it as its premier fighter for the next decade, it's going to get the best of everything in terms of avionics, RAM and weapons that US has to offer. So, that more than compensates for its deficiencies in flighter performance compared to the Eurocanards and TVC-equipped Russian fighters. But that doesn't mean that Tomcat couldn't have ended up as the more capable platform had they gone ahead with ST-21. but that's just my opinion.

Another thing will be the coming F-35. The C Version has a stated combat radius of over 590nm. I think that's even more than a F-14 with around 500nm. And I think the JSFs could get pretty close to any opponent because of their LO capabilities. Of course their weakness is the restriction to only carry 2 missiles internally. But then again I think they could disrupt enemy lines on greater range making it easier for the SuperHornets.
And if the V-22 ASW version will come, that capability will improve again, too.

Though PLAN has made great improvements, it's still a long shot away from USN.
In most areas they are not yet in the same technical arena compared to the US. That means programs for specific tasks are far more expansiv in the US, so of course there are political considerations ot be made. More than in a time/place were you could afford having more weapon systems coexisting or spending the mony for testing several possibilities, just because they were "simpler".

i don't know why the USN did not make a navel F-22 to replace the F-14. instead they chose the f-18 which is a bunch of BS!!!

Originally Posted by zachjeli

i don't know why the USN did not make a navel F-22 to replace the F-14. instead they chose the f-18 which is a bunch of BS!!!

The super Hornet, AIM-120D combo is, for now, an acceptable solution for me. It would be nice to have the range of the F-14 and the AIM-54...but the Superhornet has good range, and as I have said, the AIM-120D is approaching the AIM-54 range but will be more lethal and more flexible.

I still hold out hope one day for a ALRAAM, but the AIM-120D AMRAAM is getting close to being just that.

What I would really like to see is an A-6 replacement (like the A-12 was going to be) to give the carriers the heavier punch they used to have, and an S-3 replacement (like and ASW V-22) for long range and high endurance, high capacity aircraft ASW.

Ok, guys, no more talking about USN aircrafts in Chinese Navy forum!

PLAN capabilities

Surface Strike - Excellent with large surface combatants equip with numerous Anti-ship missile batteries. On a ship for ship basis, I would argue, that they are on par with the latest USN ships in anti-surface warfare. However, as a whole, the entire PLAN can't still match the anti ship firepower of a carrier.

AAW - Improving but still not that great. Approximately 5 ships have area AAW capabilities. It is still a great improvement from the Crotale base point defence systems of the 1990's. In comparison, of all the surface combatants of the USN only the FFGs does not have Area AAW. Plan ships will still have trouble against mass saturation attacks though.

ASW - (defined as ability to hunt and prosecute submarines) Not that great. Obsolescent SSN's (Victor III is an obsolete design), sonar, lack of dedicated ASW ships, and heavy reliance on SSKs, (whose ideal targets are normally surface ships) will really hamper the PLAN against a first class opponent submarine opponent.

Strike - No capability to attack land targets more than gun range. To my knowledge, PLAN ships are not equipped with land attack missiles.

Amphibious - Limited to short range. PLAn has zero capability to support a battalion size "marine force" further than its perephirals and keep it supplied for 30 days of combat.

IMHO

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

Ok, guys, no more talking about USN aircrafts in Chinese Navy forum!

oh i am sorry about that.