Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily.

Ships take years to build and commission, your outline will take over a couple decades, and we have'nt got to the funding part yet. There is simply no money for this kind of shopping spree. And I don't think the Russians would even entertain the idea of PLAN outnumber the RN Pacific fleet in terms of Sovermenny destroyers.

Nuclear Subs and Carriers take even longer to construct, you start building them now if you plan on using them in 10 years time.

Sorry this is not a game and China simply does'nt have the money.

There issimply no need for an aircraft carrier now in PLAN, it just a total waste of resources, which can be better apply else were.
It would be also be a better idea type 052C DDG instead of buying Sovermenny class DDG as I believe it have much protein of being developed into a world-class DDG and it a good idea to china to improve it technology and ship building skill. As it can't rely on Russian forever.

Lee Delbert sez...

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily

Click to expand...

Ya' really think so? Is there any verified proof that the 052 class DDG has a Aegis type system??? 12 Sov's?? That's all? The Pacific fleet has 24 Arliegh Burkes and 12 Ticos and 6 aircraft carriers with full air wings. Not to mention LA class subs. One Ohio class SSGN bristling with 154 cruise misslies.
Did you know that the USN has installed new sonar sensors on all it's subs??
A sonar so improved it gives a single sub the capablities of the entire fleet of LA class? (this according to the article)



What sort of ASW does the PLAN have? What about a viable ASW helo? what about logistics? What about foward bases? What will the PLAN look like now and in the future?

Ok Lee..given that limited bit of info what makes you think that the force you discribe could defeat the US Pacific Fleet?

Maybe some day years from now(about 10-15), if need be, the PLAN will have a force as you discribed. But unless they improve in the areas of ASW, helos, 2nd 3rd strike capablity and logistics it may take even longer. I hope there is never any sort of confrontation between the US and PRC. Peace is the only way!

There is simply no need for an aircraft carrier now in PLAN, it just a total waste of resources, which can be better apply else were.
It would be also be a better idea type 052C DDG instead of buying Sovermenny class DDG as I believe it have much protein of being developed into a world-class DDG and it a good idea to china to improve it technology and ship building skill. As it can't rely on Russian forever.

Click to expand...

I agree with all you said except about an aircraft carrier. I really think the PLAN needs an large LPH type ship...20,000 tons or so with the ablity to carry about 36-40 helos of various types for varied missions. Plus 1000-1200 marines.

I 100% agree that the PRC cannot rely on Russia for ever.

Listen to the current outcry over China's naval buildup, if China builds up as you mentionned, it will get into a huge naval race against Japan, India and possibly South Korea. Especially Japan, it has the economy, technology, support from US and the shipbuilding industry to crank out Kongos, Oyashio subs and other ships at speeds that none of the Chinese shipyards can do. And let's face it, the USN is not going to let anyone approach its capability.

And no, there is no need for any more 956, please! and songs? I think China has shifted production of Songs to Yuan. If you look at China's currently mass produced ships, it's all subs, type 22 FACs and transport ships. This clearly shows that its focus is still where it has always been at.

Not answering anyone question directly, but reading early unified German history for an essay. the german doctrine Tirpitz designed to protect German trade interests in an era of rising protectionist policies in the world called for the maintaining of 2/3 diadvantage towards to the British navy.

For example if Germany had 60 warships, then Britian had to have 90 warships. the german knew the British navy had to patrol a vast area to maintain its colonies. the german believed the brits to remain supreme had no choice but maintain this advantage.

Firstly in regards to United States and China, I note history never repeats itself however there are similairities to britain and germany. Could as the German believed could cause similiar problems for the US.

If the dominate power tried to maintain its supremecy like Britain, it would face shortages of trained manpower if kept on building more ships, money taxpayers in america as in britain are not militaristic they want to see better services, again money could they afford the extra expenditure, there are many more problems but i am saying China should adopt a similiar policy instead of trying match the US in numbers.

There is a famous story in World War II in the Island of Malta (or was it Crete). The British were evacuating the island as the Germans were coming. The British Admiral offered to send the entire Med. Fleet to support the British army. The British general was of course very concern about the losses of ships, especially battleships. The famous reply was: "General, it takes 3 years to build a battleship, while it takes 3 centuries to build a naval tradition."

What I'm trying to say is, does the PLAN have enough Admirals, Captains, Commanders, deck officers, and qualified sailors to effectively man the number of warships you are proposing? It takes a long time to build a world class navy.

Not answering anyone question directly, but reading early unified German history for an essay. the german doctrine Tirpitz designed to protect German trade interests in an era of rising protectionist policies in the world called for the maintaining of 2/3 diadvantage towards to the British navy.

For example if Germany had 60 warships, then Britian had to have 90 warships. the german knew the British navy had to patrol a vast area to maintain its colonies. the german believed the brits to remain supreme had no choice but maintain this advantage.

Firstly in regards to United States and China, I note history never repeats itself however there are similairities to britain and germany. Could as the German believed could cause similiar problems for the US.

If the dominate power tried to maintain its supremecy like Britain, it would face shortages of trained manpower if kept on building more ships, money taxpayers in america as in britain are not militaristic they want to see better services, again money could they afford the extra expenditure, there are many more problems but i am saying China should adopt a similiar policy instead of trying match the US in numbers.

Click to expand...

The British doctrine was called a "two-power standard", meaning the Royal navy must be as numerous and as powerful as the next 2 largest navy in the world (germany and france). Admiral Fisher, the creator of the Dreadnaught, changed RN policy and concentrated the bulk of the RN battlehips in homewaters, to watch over the German Fleet, with the colonies patrolled by armored and light cruisers.

Currently, the USN have a "17-power standard" it is larger and more powerful than the next 17 navies combined!


America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers. The Navy likes to call the big Nimitz class carriers "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory" -- all two dozen American carriers of all classes add up to about 75 acres of deck space. Deckspace is probably a good measure of combat power. The rest of the world's carriers have about 15 acres of deck space, one fifth that of America's

The PLAN have a lot of catching up to do.

IDonT sez..

America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers.

Click to expand...

Does that include the USN's 11 LHA/LHD ships? Ships that are larger than any other countries aircraft carriers?

The PLAn does have a long way to go. I don't think they will try to catchup.They just need a force big enough to protect them selves from possible foes.

Lee Delbert said:

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US, I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice, having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

With this number of ships I believe US pacific fleet can be neutralized easily.

Click to expand...

let me rip this apart piece by piece...
first off, it would be nice if you took a pause and put in a period once in a while.

For me the Chinese Fleet should build and operate 12 type 052C Aegis DDG so that China can be assured of supremacy regarding possible threats from airforces like US and its allies, and having a 12 Sovermenny Type destroyers would also be nice especially in destroyer the carrier battle groups of US

Click to expand...

The two 52c curently are feild testing the latest of chinese systems. The technology is not mature enough for mass production(havnt you heard the APAR on one might have overheated?) Future ships will have even better systems. On the other hand though, sovremenny;s are 80s tech that no navy with funding the sive of the PLAN's should be sailing. The russians build them as slow as hell(more than 3 years, a year more than the time a chiense shipyard takes to build a DDG). quality cannot be guarenteed.

I think China should and must develop a new aircraft carrier soon so that they can launch offensive against far flung territories of China's possible enemy ( 5 carrier battle groups ) would be nice

Click to expand...

China does not even have a single carrier in serivce, yet you speak of 5 battle groups? not only would that require excessive spending on carriers, but their escorts aswell. China will wait until its carrier technology is mature before attempting such a venture

having 24 song calss submarines and another 12 yuan and kilo class submarines and having a 12 new nuclear powered attack submarines "plus the current chinese fleet" would give China a total naval supremacy in the pacific right?

Click to expand...

Song is 90s tech. The yuan is modern, yet too modern for mass production. Im sure someday China may have 12 SSNs, but HOW ABOUT WAITING FOR THE SECOND ONE TO ENTER SERVICE? you rush things.


now, remeber, DDGs, carriers, and submarines might get the most media attention, but by no means the power of a good navy. a good navy needs fleet Aux, LPDs, and frigates aswell. Good ship-ship communication is vital. Chinas C41 is very infantile. having 12 DDGs is nothing if you cant coordinate them.

bd popeye said:

IDonT sez..


Does that include the USN's 11 LHA/LHD ships? Ships that are larger than any other countries aircraft carriers?

The PLAn does have a long way to go. I don't think they will try to catchup.They just need a force big enough to protect them selves from possible foes.

Click to expand...

That includes the LHA and LHDs.
Click on the link, it shows the world's carriers in their exact scale