Naval firepower rated: China comes 4th

walter

Junior Member
This is an interesting thread. I don't have anything to add about ASMs or the debate on quantifying naval fire power, but I have to give kudos to planeman for his effort in attempting to quantify the world's ASMs and their delivery platforms. Regardless of a poorly chosen title, as planeman stated in his opening post

It is far from perfect, and in itself lacks context, but it is useful all the same

so everybody's nitpicking has been overdone in my opinion. This forum would benefit from more proactive posters like planeman.

to planeman...just curious, how long did all that catalogueing and scoring take and what sources did you use?
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Seadog, deny as you like, you cant change my impression of your view. After all, it is my impression. i agree 100% that the u.s and its carriers have the no 1 fire power, but that doesnt mean it is invincible.

colleino, im not sure ur eample is perfect. The the u.s navy may have been considered the best, but the kaigun was more capable in many aspects.
1. Kaigun had 11 carriers, with more manuverable zeros and highly trained pilots. the u.s had 7 carriers, a few of which were ww1 era, less manverable wildcats, and less trained pilots
2. Kaigun had faster, more modern battleships with bigger guns
3. kaigun had better sub fleet with advanced torpedoes
4. Kaigun had experience operating in the pacific in the japanese conquests. the u.s fleet was dormant in terms of combat
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
walter said:
This is an interesting thread. I don't have anything to add about ASMs or the debate on quantifying naval fire power, but I have to give kudos to planeman for his effort in attempting to quantify the world's ASMs and their delivery platforms. Regardless of a poorly chosen title, as planeman stated in his opening post

so everybody's nitpicking has been overdone in my opinion. This forum would benefit from more proactive posters like planeman.

to planeman...just curious, how long did all that catalogueing and scoring take and what sources did you use?
Thanks, at last someone seeing it for what it is. It took quite a while but I am pretty speedy on Excel and google so it wasn't too bad. The most useful site is Wikipedia! Most navies' fleets are covered in some detail - by cross referencing it with numerous other sites, including those of the navies in question, Sinodefence etc, I gathered data. I also found
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
really useful although it is mostly out of date.


BTW, since my original post, I've made many amendments, additions and verifications on my data. China's rating has increased to come much closer behind Japan's - I'd accidently missed the sub-launched YJ-82s and many FACs. But Japan is still in 3rd pos.

I'd also counted Russian Su-33s as having Kh-31As when in fact they don't - my err and it reduces Russia's lead by quite a margin.

HOWEVER - I currently have Russian Tu-95/142 Bears as not having an OPERATIONAL anti-ship role/capability - if anyone has any credible evidence to contradict this please say.

I'll re-issue my research when I've finished this round of additions.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Another example about the unpredictability of naval warfare, etc., basically supporting what I said before: The Battle of Coronel from Wikipedia.

The naval Battle of Coronel took place on 1 November 1914 during World War I off the coast of central Chile. During the battle, a Royal Navy squadron commanded by Rear-Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock was met and defeated by the German Kaiserliche Marine forces led by Vice-Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee. This was not only the first British naval defeat of World War I but Britain's first naval defeat since 1812 and the first defeat of a British naval squadron since the Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781.

The Royal Navy, with assistance from other Allied navies, had spent the early months of the war searching for Spee's German East Asiatic Squadron, fearing its potential for commerce raiding in the Pacific. Spee left the German colony at Tsingtao in China, once Japan entered the war on Britain's side.

The British learned from an intercepted radio communication in early October of a plan devised by Spee to prey upon shipping in the crucial trading routes along the west coast of South America. Patrolling South America at that time was Admiral Cradock's West Indies Squadron, which consisted of two armoured cruisers, HMS Good Hope (Cradock's flagship) and HMS Monmouth, the modern light cruiser HMS Glasgow, and a converted ex-liner, HMS Otranto.

Cradock's fleet was by no means modern or particularly strong, and certainly ill-matched when set against Spee's formidable force of five vessels, led by the armoured cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau plus a further three light cruisers, all modern, efficient ships. Nevertheless he was ordered to deal with Spee.

On 18 October 1914 Spee, having learned of the solo existence of the Glasgow, set off with all five warships from Valparaíso with the intention of destroying it.

Cradock, who was aware that his shipping was outgunned by Spee's, had meanwhile been waiting in the hope of naval reinforcements. In the event the Admiralty dispatched only HMS Defence - an armoured cruiser, and HMS Canopus - an elderly battleship, the latter sent from London. Neither reached Cradock before battle unexpectedly commenced on 1 November 1914.

Deciding that he could wait no longer for the delayed reinforcements, Cradock determined to sail from the Falkland Islands to a predetermined rendezvous point with the Glasgow at Coronel, the latter having been sent there to gather intelligence.

At this point the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, in London issued orders to Cradock on 28 October instructing him to halt, pending possible reinforcement from the Japanese navy. It is a moot point as to whether Cradock actually received Churchill's instructions; in any event he shortly afterwards ordered his squadron to adopt an attacking formation.

Cradock had received word, again via intercepted radio signal on 31 October that SMS Leipzig, the slowest light cruiser in Spee's fleet, was in the area. He promptly ordered his squadron north to cut it off - and instead found himself confronting Spee's entire force the following day at around 4.30pm.


Ship movements during the Battle of Coronel. British ships are shown in red, German ships are shown in blue.At this stage it is probable that the British force could have escaped by sailing towards Canopus, then some 300 miles to the south; with the failing light Spee would most likely have lost contact with the British squadron. Instead Cradock chose to stay and fight; however he ordered Otranto to break formation and flee.

With the seas difficult (to the disadvantage of the British) Spee reacted by moving his faster vessels out of Cradock's firing range; at sunset -(19:00 or 7pm) - with the setting sun clearly silhouetting Cradock's fleet, he began to shell the latter's force, with Scharnhorst's third salvo crippling the flagship Good Hope. Good Hope sank at 19:57 after being raked by accurate German gunfire and went down with all hands, including Admiral Cradock. The badly damaged Monmouth turned her stern towards the open sea in a desperate attempt to stay afloat, but her captain gallantly ordered Glasgow sailing nearby to make her escape rather than try to take Monmouth in tow. Monmouth sank shortly therafter at 21:18 hours, while Glasgow was able to get clear and re-unite with Otranto.

There were no survivors of either ship (1,654 officers and men), Cradock himself going down with Good Hope. Glasgow and Otranto both escaped (although the former suffered five hits but no casualties). Spee's own fleet had suffered little damage, only three sailors wounded, and sailed thereafter to Valparaíso to a rapturous welcome from the local German population.

Once news of the scale of the British defeat, and its consequent humiliation, reached the British Admiralty in London a decision was quickly taken to assemble a huge naval force under Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee. This was promptly dispatched to destroy Spee's force: which it subsequently did, at the Battle of the Falkland Islands.

The Royal Navy was superior to the German Navy in every respect but submarines. They had the German North Sea Fleet bottled up in harbor. The Royal Navy also had the best system of cable and wireless radio stations in the world, due to their worldwide empire, something the Germans couldn't match. The Royal Navy had freedom of movment all round the world's oceans, and the Germans had to avoid major ports to prevent discovery. The British sailors were better trained than the Gemans, no one trained their men better than the Royal Navy. Despite all of this, the Germans won.
 

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
walter said:
This is an interesting thread.

so everybody's nitpicking has been overdone in my opinion. This forum would benefit from more proactive posters like planeman.

to planeman...just curious, how long did all that catalogueing and scoring take and what sources did you use?

You know what, Walter. You're absolutely correct. Planeman does deserve credit for a very good compilation of open source data. And I agree, we have nit-picked the way it was initially represented to death. And I admit, I'm probably the most guilty.

@Migleader - Fair enough. But I never said US naval forces are invincible.

@ Planeman - Kudos. :) Looking forward to the rest of your report.
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
To sum it up so far, great work, planeman. We look forward to the updates on the report.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Going back to the original topic...

I noticed that the calculations assume maritime strike aircraft to carry 2 AShM's each. It's my understanding that the aircraft such as the JH-7A, F/A-18, F-15, etc. are all capable of carrying up to 4 AShM's?

Check out the photo in at this URL:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That's a F/A-18 armed with 4 x Harpoons, right?
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
adeptitus said:
Going back to the original topic...

I noticed that the calculations assume maritime strike aircraft to carry 2 AShM's each. It's my understanding that the aircraft such as the JH-7A, F/A-18, F-15, etc. are all capable of carrying up to 4 AShM's?

Check out the photo in at this URL:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That's a F/A-18 armed with 4 x Harpoons, right?

A very good point. In most cases I'd say two was the 'normal' operational load for most types. Some aircaft, like the Super Etendard, Mirage 5PVA etc are only likely to carry a single AShM whereas the H-6M is like to carry 4 (?) - I've tried to factor all this in.
 
Last edited:

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
final9js.gif


Main amendments by country:

Russia:
* Removed Su-33's Kh-31A (AS-17 Krypton) capability which was an error
* Reworked the Tu-22 Backfire estimate. Reduced total aircraft estimate from 165 to 70 and split (estimated) between Tu-22M2 which are armed with 1 AS-4(?) Kitchen missile, and Tu-22M3s which carry 6 AS-16 Kickback missiles internally. Previously I'd wrongly only attributed one AS-16 per bomber.

China:
* Added fast attack craft
* Added submarine launched YJ-82s
* Added PLANAF's Su-30MK2 aircraft which would each carry two Kh-31A (AS-16 Krypton) anti-ship missiles

India:
* Increased the number of Kilo class subs believed to have anti-ship versions of SS-N-27 Klub missile equipped

General:
* Correction on Penguin missile's max speed.
* Added loads more navies.
 

big toothbrush

New Member
imho this kind of ranking is missing the point. one can't simply judge the firepower only based on datas of ASM itself. C4ISR are more important here. without reliable acquirement and transmission of targets informations, you can't complete the guidance process. then whatever how far its range is, this missile is no more than a firecracker.
 
Top