- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 29,169
- Reaction score
- 9,721
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The Russian naval forces and the PLA Naval forces share much in common. Each is building or completing a Fortress Fleet. That is, a fleet focused on the homeland and its near waters. Neither is contesting the high seas militarily or the commercial sea lanes that cross-cross among the continents. Militarily neither Russia nor China can compete against the United States and its ongoing advances to an already vastly superior naval force. And air forces. In commercial terms, the stakes are too high for everyone globally should either Russia or China seek to disrupt or to exercise control over international sea lanes of commerce and trade. Either country or both of 'em.
Each China and Russia is able to build ships that will be able to defend themselves against a comparable USN, Japanese or Nato naval combat ship. However, neither can the PLA Navy nor the Russian navy match up against a USN or Nato task force coming at 'em. Nor can PLAN or the Russian Navy match the USN or Nato naval forces on a total force effectiveness basis. In respect of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force -- Navy -- its quality of ships, aircraft and subs, the personnel, regular and tough training at sea, technology, firepower, tactics, commanders professionalism, traditions and naval history mean the PLA Navy needs to concentrate on the JMSDF entirely and only. While PLAN has a total tonnage superior to the JMSDF, Japan's ships, crews and commanders are of a superior quality and its ASW is both sophisticated and strong in its numbers. PLAN against the JMSDF has its hands full on its best day, yet if PLAN must engage the USN too then PLAN is sunk.
Further, Russia and NATO have different strategic requirements. Russia protects its land with ships forward at sea. PLAN is conceived and designed to do the same. Yet PLAN has only some ships forward in the Indian Ocean and at the horn of Africa, the latter in anti-piracy operations. USN and NATO in contrast control the seas. Nato in particular is an alliance lying on two sides of an ocean. Which means that Russia needs a large amount of smaller ships in many places while NATO can afford fewer but bigger ships. CCP Boyz in Beijing are in contrast trying to build a blue water navy that has no blue water experience, expertise, confidence. And a blue water PLAN must await the completion of its Fortress Fleet which has only begun.
PLAN and the Russian Navy remain at a prohibitive disadvantage in any surface engagement. NATO vessels are by default stronger than Russian ships simply because the Russian doctrine calls for fewer stronger ships while requiring weaker ships in quantity. Russian ships might have comparable armament but Russian ships have weaker sensors, less durability and less endurance. NATO ships will be smarter, tougher, bigger and will have more stamina even if both sides hit equally hard in every respect. PLAN weaknesses are meanwhile well known. For instance, when PLAN goes out for live fire exercises it's always the same ships, crews, commanders, because they're the only ones trained for it and capable of not blowing themselves up in the process. The rest of Plan says ashore or well out of the way.
While the Russian Navy provides most of Russian anti-access and area denial defensive capability, Chinese are well ahead of Russia in A2/AD. The reason is that Beijing has a vast continuous coastline to defend, whereas Russia has pockets of small seas and only some open exposure to vast seas. While PLA defenses rely heavily on missile swarms, Russian defenses are less sophisticated. Russians are building Buyans for example, i.e., swarms of small ships that Moscow is relying on to launch missiles before being destroyed. So Russia and China are building Fortress Fleet defenses to keep fleets away from their shores, first and foremost. The US on the other hand has initiated its Third Offset Strategy to overcome the developing Fortress Fleet each major adversary is building. The bottom line is that while Moscow and Beijing can hope for the best each needs to expect the worst.
Each China and Russia is able to build ships that will be able to defend themselves against a comparable USN, Japanese or Nato naval combat ship. However, neither can the PLA Navy nor the Russian navy match up against a USN or Nato task force coming at 'em. Nor can PLAN or the Russian Navy match the USN or Nato naval forces on a total force effectiveness basis. In respect of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force -- Navy -- its quality of ships, aircraft and subs, the personnel, regular and tough training at sea, technology, firepower, tactics, commanders professionalism, traditions and naval history mean the PLA Navy needs to concentrate on the JMSDF entirely and only. While PLAN has a total tonnage superior to the JMSDF, Japan's ships, crews and commanders are of a superior quality and its ASW is both sophisticated and strong in its numbers. PLAN against the JMSDF has its hands full on its best day, yet if PLAN must engage the USN too then PLAN is sunk.
Further, Russia and NATO have different strategic requirements. Russia protects its land with ships forward at sea. PLAN is conceived and designed to do the same. Yet PLAN has only some ships forward in the Indian Ocean and at the horn of Africa, the latter in anti-piracy operations. USN and NATO in contrast control the seas. Nato in particular is an alliance lying on two sides of an ocean. Which means that Russia needs a large amount of smaller ships in many places while NATO can afford fewer but bigger ships. CCP Boyz in Beijing are in contrast trying to build a blue water navy that has no blue water experience, expertise, confidence. And a blue water PLAN must await the completion of its Fortress Fleet which has only begun.
PLAN and the Russian Navy remain at a prohibitive disadvantage in any surface engagement. NATO vessels are by default stronger than Russian ships simply because the Russian doctrine calls for fewer stronger ships while requiring weaker ships in quantity. Russian ships might have comparable armament but Russian ships have weaker sensors, less durability and less endurance. NATO ships will be smarter, tougher, bigger and will have more stamina even if both sides hit equally hard in every respect. PLAN weaknesses are meanwhile well known. For instance, when PLAN goes out for live fire exercises it's always the same ships, crews, commanders, because they're the only ones trained for it and capable of not blowing themselves up in the process. The rest of Plan says ashore or well out of the way.
While the Russian Navy provides most of Russian anti-access and area denial defensive capability, Chinese are well ahead of Russia in A2/AD. The reason is that Beijing has a vast continuous coastline to defend, whereas Russia has pockets of small seas and only some open exposure to vast seas. While PLA defenses rely heavily on missile swarms, Russian defenses are less sophisticated. Russians are building Buyans for example, i.e., swarms of small ships that Moscow is relying on to launch missiles before being destroyed. So Russia and China are building Fortress Fleet defenses to keep fleets away from their shores, first and foremost. The US on the other hand has initiated its Third Offset Strategy to overcome the developing Fortress Fleet each major adversary is building. The bottom line is that while Moscow and Beijing can hope for the best each needs to expect the worst.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KWZZY5ODNBBR7BDDUIPQ5NQLLE.jpg)
eace