2020: JMSDF & PLAN Surface Combatant strength

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Jeff Head, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,122
    Likes Received:
    32,361
    In a recent thread there was a disucssion regarding 2020 and what the relative surface combatatnt strength (particularly with DDGs becase that was what the intial disccsuin was about) would be for the JMSDF and PLAN. In response to some statements made that by 2020 the PLAN would completely outclass the JMSDF and be able to defeat them out of hand, I responded that I did not believe that would not be the case at all.

    So, I thought I would document where I feel the two respective navies would be in that time frame with respect to major surface combatants with this thread. This is not meant to be a nationalistic, "our navy is going to beat your navy," disccussion. Any such posts will be referred to the mods for deletion. Rather, a discussion about the types and numbers of vessels each nation may field in that time frame and what their relative strengths and weaknesses may be in terms of showing, in my estimation why a major conflict between the two sides, particularly over the currently disputed islands is so unlikely.

    In terms of looking forward to 2020, then, I take what the JMSDF will have terms of DDGs (because that was what the discussion had been about), and what they plan in terms of continued production (either of the Akizaki class or a new design).

    The JMSDF DDGs in 2020:

    Murisami x 9 x 32 VLS x 6,200 tons
    Takanami x 5 x 32 VLS x 6,400 tons
    Akizuki x 8 x 32 VLS x 6,800 tons
    Kongo x 4 x 96 VLS x 9,600 tons
    Atago x 2 x 96 VLS x 10,000 tons
    Hyuga x 2 x 16 x 20,000 tons
    22DDH x 2 x 42 x 27,000 tons
    30 vessels with 1,396 VLS Cells and 294,200 tons

    The PLAN DDGs in 2020:

    Sovs x 4 x 0 VLS x 8,000 tons
    Type 051C x 2 x 48 VLS x 7,200 tons
    Type 052B x 2 x 0 VLS x 6,500 tons
    Type 052C x 6 x 48 VLS
    Type 052D x 10 x 640 VLS 7,500 tons
    24 vessels with 1,024 VLS Cells and 176,400 tons

    That leads to the following DDG comparison:

    JMSDF/PLAN DDG Forces in 2020:

    JMSDF: 32 DDGS with 1,396 VLS Cells and 294,200 tons
    PLAN: 24 DDGs with 1,024 VLS Cells and 176,400 tons

    Now, there have (understandably) been calls for including the "FFG" platforms in this equation. When we do that, the balance begins to shift to the PLAN overall by 2020 purely in terms of these numbers...but not taking into account the quality of the sensors, the types of wapons the VLS will operate, and the experience of the overall naval forces...which right now, and through 2020 IMHO will all favor the JMSDF. But the pure numbers of the FFG comparison add the following:

    The JMSDF FFGs in 2020:

    Asagari x 6 x (16 x.5) VLS x 3,500 tons
    Hatasukie x 8 x (16 x .5) x 3,,000 tons
    Abukuma x 6 x (16 x .5) x, 2,500 tons
    20 vessels with 160 VLS and 60,000 tons

    The PLAN FFGs in 2020:

    Type 054 x 2 x 0 VLS x 4,000 tons
    Type 054/A/B x 20 x 32 VLS x 4,500 tons
    22 vessels with 640 VLS and 98,000 tons

    This leads to the following FFG comparison:

    JMSDF/PLAN FFG Forces in 2020:

    JMSDF: 20 FFGs with 160 VLS and 60,000
    PLAN: 22 FFGs with 640 VLS and 98,000 tons

    All said, in response to any comments indicate that by 2020 the PLAN will completely out class the JMSDF and be able to defeat them out of hand, these figures show such a conclusion is simply not so.

    The JMSDF, by 2020 will have 52 modern surface combatants with well over 1,550 VLS tubes and a total of well over 300,000 tons. The PLAN will have 46 modern surface combatants with over 1,600 VLS tubes and over 275,000 tons. If those two forces clashed, it would make for a very closely matched naval combat (one which I am sure we all pray never happens), where neither side completely outclasses the other or where on side would be dispatched out of hand.

    ... and this is before we include the likely response the US Navy would have in such a conflict, which would be very telling becqause of the current mutal defense treaties Japan and the United States share.

    In addition, the match up in the air is also similarly closely matched (I will not go into details here, perhaps someone can do a seperate thread on those aircraft and their numbers) with the JSDF F-15s, F-16s and indegenous Japanese aircraft vs. the PLAAFs J-10s, J-11Bs, SU-27s, SU-30s and J-15 aircraft...and particularly when factoring in what US Air Force and Navy would bring to the table.

    For all of these reasons I feel that any conflict over dispute the islands involving these two nations is very remote, short of some terrible over-reach or miscalculation by one side or the other.
     
    #1 Jeff Head, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2013
  2. MwRYum
    Offline

    MwRYum Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    1,479
    Er...FYI, Jeff, you double posted...
     
  3. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,122
    Likes Received:
    32,361
    Er, how so?

    There is one section in my post on DDG strength and another on FFG stength. The format looks the same but thay are about two different classes of vessels. Is that what you are seeing?

    Because I show no edits by mods, or deletes of posts by mods. Mine was #1 and it is unedited, and yours in #2.
     
    #3 Jeff Head, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2013
  4. andyhugfan
    Offline

    andyhugfan Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    1
    First of all nice work.

    I don't like your approach to VLS only. You should also factor twinlaunch rails into the equation. Why won't you just count the amount of missiles carried by each DDG or FFG?
     
  5. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,543
    Likes Received:
    16,407
    Hyugas are labelled as "DDH" but really they shouldn't count with the other destroyers and surface combatants I think... even if they are equipped with two Mk41 modules.

    Also -- 8 Akizukis? Only four are planned, from what I've read, although I remember hearing something about a follow on ASW class to it, possibly based on the same hull(?) but that will take a few years to flesh out the design and they might get a couple of out by 2020.
     
    #5 Bltizo, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  6. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    29,508
    Likes Received:
    23,301
    I'm sure this thread will attract some attention..

    Well put..In the words of gollevainen let's keep clear of the nationalistic chest thumping and "penis contest" shall we?..so be it..

    bd popeye super moderator
     
  7. cn_habs
    Offline

    cn_habs Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    133
    In open sea far from the inlands, JMSDF clearly has the advantage in both DDG technology and operating experience.

    However, everything can change pretty quickly if most of the fighting occurs in proximity to Chinese mainland. China can easily chirp out hundreds of ballistic missiles like dumplings and fire them into any Japanese airfields and ports.
     
    #7 cn_habs, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  8. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Typo, That would be the Type 054A FFG not Type 052

    Good analysis too, Not to factor in the training, professionalism and experience of the JMSDF

    Anyone who underestimates the JMSDF is wholly misguided Not only is it vast in its arsenal its extremely well oiled military machine, Royal Navy looks like a backwater navy when compared to the Japanese!
     
  9. kwaigonegin
    Offline

    kwaigonegin Colonel

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,363
    Likes Received:
    5,168
    As far as 'who will beat who to a pulp' scenario you ALWAYS have to take into consideration air power as well. In that hypothesis I believe PLAN/China holds a distinct advantage because based on a linear projection of aircraft procurement and progression they will have more fighters/strike aircraft by far over JMSDF in 2020.

    Either way this is just a fun mental exercise because in reality it takes a LOT more than just knowing how many missiles I have vs how many missles he has etc to accurately predict who will win. These are two nations with very capable military each and pretty closely match ... therefore there are like 1000 other factors that needs to be considered to even come close to any sort of prediction. Even then it is at best a wild @$$ guess. pardon my french.

    The only clear cut answer would be if the entire 7th fleet/USN gets involved which then of course China would lose BUT in that scenario a global thermonuclear war would then be the most likely next step in which case it would be all moot at the end anyway.
     
    #9 kwaigonegin, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  10. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,122
    Likes Received:
    32,361
    Mainly because, andy, this analys is not meant to be "exhaustive." It is just meant to try and illustrate with a couple of major considerations that talk about it being a lopsided contest is not an accurate way to portray it IMHO.

    In an exahustive analysis, I agree with both you and kwaigonegin completely. Single rail, twin rail, cannister launched, types of missile and their ranges, accuracy, vessel endurace, ECM, training, logistics, realtive experience levels, condition of vessels, and many, many other poitns would be taken into consideration. That's why I speak of training, experience, and air operations as well, without going into detail.

    But with this thread, I did not want to go there. I just wanted to make a point...and VLS gives a good indication of technology levels, and open up the door to much quicker fire rates, and to the use of multiple missile types and functionality from those types of systems.

    The bottom line was simply to show that talk of a one-sided, completely outclassed contest are not an accurate portrayal in my opinion.

    What you would have would be two very modern, very equally matched naval military forces who would be fighting over some small islands. And, in a conflict that was not meant to be, and probably would not develop into a full-set war of conquest or seeking the full defeat and surrender of one or the other nation.

    Anyhow, that was my intent.

    Yes, I see that, and thanks...I have gone back and corrected it.
     
Loading...

Share This Page