Must U.S. Navy Downsize Plans?
The U.S. Navy is already as its lowest point ship wise since World War I. Now it will go to 276 ships. That is very small deployed all over the world. With China having over 150 dedicated ships in the Pacific, is the U.S. doomed to be over matched by the Chinese? Seems possible.
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-...ownsize-plans/
Thread title: U.S. Navy Smallest Since World War I, Tries to Meet China's Growing Fleet: Good Luck
Article title: Must U.S. Navy Downsize Plans?
Pray tell, why don't you just stick to the real deal and stop making up sensationalist crap?
PS: After heaving read the entire article, where the fvck is the author talking about the US trying to meet China's growing fleet?
I like how they bring up WWI, like the next one is going to be the US vs China. Get ready for WWIII, 276-150... Quality vs quantity. China with their evil 150 ships in the Pacific, well no kidding. China has a navy in the Pacific with a 150 boats? Whats the surprise, they have a large country with a massive population. Expanding their sphere of influence abroad is nothing out of the ordinary, annoying how are media here loves to paint other countries. "The next 'big-war' you know what I mean, China and their spread of communism..."
Because that is Travis's schtick. Never mind the fact the US still has the largest navy.Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce
The problem is the earth is the same size it's always been so it's going to be tougher to cover the necessary area with fewer ships. The sizes of others' navies are almost irrelevant.
I would rather have one fully functional aircraft carrier than 100 row boats. Just saying.
The author is ridiculous. Obivously, capability didn't come in to play. We may have fewer ships but our ships are more capable and more powerful per unit. Not to mention, training & readiness when compared to other navies let alone China.
Hey now. Don't try to bring logic in a Travis thread.
Advances in Radar and weapons tech does make loads of difference though
I meant to say the author of the title is ridiculous. Obviously, the article is sound but how Travis generated a topic title like that from reading the article is beyond me.
Is there a rule on this forum that says the thread title MUST match exactly the title of any articles posted in that thread? Or are people allowed to post their own opinions and interpretations?
"Good luck" meeting the Chinese fleets growth? Even after the cuts, the USN will still be 10 Supercarriers, 15 Cruisers, ~60 Destroyers, and ~20 Frigates/LCS as well as a large fleet of amphibious warfare vessels and ~70 nuclear submarines. The Chinese will never meet that kind of size.
The PLAN navy is weighed down with a number of very poor vessels when compared with the US fleet. Even a much smaller US task force could survive in a contested coastal environment off the Chinese coast.
The USN's 21st Century Battle Force which will rule the waves from 2013-2142 will consist of about 300 ships (currently 282)
12 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN)
10-11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers (CVN)
~48 attack submarines (SSN)
0-4 cruise missile submarines (SSGN) (possibly replaced by Virgina class SSNs by 2027)
78-90 "large multi-mission surface combatants" (DDG/CG)
26-55 "small multi-role surface combatants' (FF/FFG/LCS/PC)
28-32 amphibious landing ships (LHA/LHD/LPD/LSD)
~29 combat logistics ships (AO, AOR, AOE, AE, et al)
24-33 support ships (MCM, AD, AS, et al)
To do this the Navy plans to have constant construction from now until 2042 with 7-13 ships allocated every year, keep a 20 year life span for smaller ships and a 30-50 year span for larger ones. This will cost about $15-$20 billion per year in constant dollars.
Things will get worse before they get better and fleet numbers will actually dip for the next few years until by 2015 there will be a 276-ship Navy. This is followed by a slow but steady rise to 307 ships by 2039.
You can take roughly a quarter of these ships and forcast the size of a force sent into contested Chinese waters for a Blue on Red naval war (Lets Call it Harpoon 2015) and that would be:
2-3 nuclear powered aircraft carriers (CVN)
~12 attack submarines (SSN)
1+ cruise missile submarine (SSGN)
20-25 "large multi-mission surface combatants" (DDG/CG)
8-20 "small multi-role surface combatants' (FF/FFG/LCS/PC)
7-8 amphibious landing ships (LHA/LHD/LPD/LSD) many of which could carry ASW helicopters and AV-8B/F-35C aircraft in a sea control role.
plus combat logistics ships and support ships to keep them there.
With ultra modern satcom linked real time situational awareness tying them all together like the Borg on crack.
Facing them would be the might of the Dragon :
The PLAN Navy
4 Jin class SSBNs (which are a game changer)
9 Han and Shang class SSNs (very noisy)
50 cranky and loud diesel SSKs (including several old Ming boats)
1 experimental aircraft carrier (of questionable combat capability)
25 DD/DDG of which on the 4 Sovremenny and the 3 Luyang class can be called modern. These overall are still inferior to US DDG-51 class destroyers on a ship-to-ship basis.
47 Frigates- many of whom are 2,000 ton Jianghu-class corvettes that are closer in mission and armament to US Coast Guard cutters.
~300 small sub-chasers, gunboats, and fast attack craft. Most of these are just what their names say they are and would have a short life span in open sea combat with a modern naval force. However there are 60 fast Houbei class missile boats that could be very interesting in littoral situations, but still lack a true air defense and could be gobbled up by F-18s with LGBs, Harpoons, and even Standard missiles in a surface attack role.
And lots of coastal based MIGs and SU's carrying bombs and guided missiles as well as shore based CSS-5 ASBMs and smaller Sizzlers but this is counter-pointed by new SM-3s fired from advanced flight DDG-51s and TLAMS fired both from the US fleet's SSGN and surface ships. You can bet to remain valid in future budget meetings the USAF will offer B-2 strikes on these positions staged from Guam as well as any new gee-whiz UAVs they can muster.
China has a coastal navy, without a doubt. And lots of vintage Soviet 1960s tech. Granted they have a few newer ships, but overall, it would be hard pressed to take on a large modern western force.
Of course, it would be unlikely that a US-China row would not include US allied naval platforms from the RN, RNAS, Taiwan, Japan, etc..which further tilts the advantage into the blue end of the spectrum.
OH NO THE US NAVY IS SMALLER THAN ITS WW1 NAVY! What about the tiny FACT that modern ships are a billion times more capable than 100 year old stuff and you don't need the same amount...
Jesus, how about trolling a bit less.
Food for thought:
The US navy has 286 ships and 351 flag officers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
