Who and how terrible is the Chinese navy?
If you subscribe to the Russian-language version of the Chinese newspaper Jenmin Ribao, then, in addition to the beautiful (real) photos from the fields and plants, you can also catch what we would call propaganda in the style of “don't touch me.”
Messages specifically about the launching / commissioning of new ships of large classes flashed there constantly. Not as editorials, but still.
Knowledgeable experts (without quotes) say that the PRC does not just build a huge fleet, but implements the world's largest naval construction program. And it is quite possible that it is China that will lead the maritime arms race in the near future.
Here the question immediately arises: against whom will China be friends with so many ships? And how serious are the PRC's naval forces, not quantitatively, but qualitatively?
That is, with which fleet will need to compare the PLA Navy: Russian, American, Japanese, Indian?
It’s probably worth starting with a quantitative and qualitative assessment.
Surface fleet. He seems to be more visible, so it’s worth starting with.
Aircraft carriers. List two, but there are nuances. One is the completed “Varyag” TAVKR, that is, it is not at all like classmates, the second is, in principle, the same “Varyag”, but tucked into a Chinese copier. Therefore, “Shandong” turned out to be better than “Liaoning” / “Varyag”, at least it carries ten more aircraft and is not viewed as a training ship.
In general - one and a half. But the Chinese are accelerating the pace (good, they know how) are building the third aircraft carrier. Which will be quite an aircraft carrier, because it will install a catapult with all the consequences.
Destroyers. 37 units. Strength. Moreover, even the oldest, “Lyuda”, which are essentially our 41 project, were built in the beginning of the 70 of the last century. In fact, at the level of our theoretically. On the practice later.
This is without taking into account the new 055 project ships, which are similar to the Zamvolt.
Frigates. 71 unit. The backbone, of course, ships projects 054 / 054, but the rest is nothing like that.
Corvettes. 41 unit and built on.
Amphibious assault ships.
UDC "Tsinchenshan" (project 071). 4 units. "Mistral" or something like that. Helicopter carrier, commander, hospital and so on.
BDK. 25 units.
KFOR. 15 units.
MDK. 46 units.
Boats and other small vessels will not be considered, there are many of them. Even very much.
Underwater fleet.
Jin submarine of 094 / 094A project. 4 units. It is worth noting that the boats are mildly fresh.
Plus one SSBN project 092 "Xia", on the move, after upgrading, but still the last century. It is possible that the role of the training ship was prepared for it, taking into account the TENG 096 project being built, they may be disposed of.
Talking about multipurpose nuclear submarines is difficult. At present, China is re-equipping this class of ships, and there is a lot of confusion in reports and statistics.
At a minimum, there are still three submarines of the 091 "Han" project in service. There were five, but two were definitely disabled and replaced with the next generation boats.
The next generation is the submarine of the 093 Shan project.
To date, 4 units, two upgraded to version 093A, then the boats will be built on the project 093В. In 2017, the PLA Navy received two such submarines. As a result, the total number of multi-purpose submarines in the fleet is 9 units.
It seems to be not so much, but 14 (13) nuclear submarines - this is the level of Britain. There, too, 4 SSBNs and 9 (6 in the ranks and 3 are under construction) of multi-purpose submarines. The level, however ...
Non-nuclear submarines of the PLA Navy is generally the most! 53 units (not exactly).
Here, however, the choice is very difficult. From the frankly old submarines on the basis of the Russian 633 “Romeo”, “Paltusov” and “Varshavyanok” projects already produced in Russia to the newest submarines of the 039A / B project, which are a funny alliance of our 636 project and the Swedish power plant from the Gotland submarine.
The number in the 53 boat is not accurate. In the same year, 2017, the submarine fleet received at least three boats of the 039 project, but there is no exact information about how many old ones were written off (they should have been written off by some of the ancients). Therefore, the number of diesel-electric submarines can range from 53 to 56.
It seems that there is a complete order. Ships are building, and building at a truly communist pace. Each year, the amount of delivered tonnage increases, from 40 000 tons in 2017 to 80 000 tons in 2018.
You should not compare the possibilities of Chinese shipbuilding and, say, Russian. Everything will be very sad look. The PRC is not yet the USA (yet), but not ours anymore. Sad but true.
But not all. Speaking about the quantitative state, not yet said a word about quality. And worth it.
It is no secret for anyone that the main method used by Chinese designers for any military equipment in principle is the reverse engineering method. If simpler, then cloning.
The method, in principle, tested, in it the Chinese are really masters. But there are unpleasant moments. In order to copy / clone something, it is necessary to have it as a sample. And, if it turned out quite well with the aircraft carrier (the purchase of Varyag from Ukraine is of a type for a floating casino), then there are things that even Ukraine cannot sell. Just because of the lack thereof.
And that which is, do not get any tricks and tricks. Just because the owners themselves need.
Therefore, despite the presence of the same submarine in China, everything is not so rosy. If you believe the American intelligence service, the ONI naval service, which does not get out of the region, then even the most modern submarines of the 094 and 093 projects are much inferior even to Soviet third-generation counterparts, boats of the 667БДР and 671РТМК projects.
Meanwhile, fourth-generation submarines are in service and are being successfully built, representing significant hemorrhoids even for Americans. This is paradoxical, but for some reason for all the time of the collapse of the Soviet military industry, enterprises producing nuclear submarines suffered the least. What is not something that does not please, but causes puppy delight.
As a result, we have “Severodvinsk” of the project 855 “Ash” and “Borei” of the project 955. The Chinese have nothing of the kind and will not have it even in the future for the next 15-20 years.
I observed information from time to time that the People's Republic of China would soon begin large-scale construction of a nuclear submarine, but I think that we should treat it as our nuclear-powered rocket. Languages there, why not say?
It’s absolutely not worth arguing that the Chinese have both finance and production base. Here is another nuance: there is something to build, there is where to build. There is no answer to the question “what to build?” The technology of tomorrow in China is not very. Otherwise, what's the point in direct copying of all foreign technology, which you can reach?
No, for example, rockets and Tanks Chinese-made quite imagined. But still, there is a difference between a missile (albeit anti-ship) and an atomic submarine carrier of such missiles.
A sudden breakthrough in Chinese science? Somehow I do not really believe it. Rather, I believe in the mass buying up of brains around the world for the yuan. Faster out, but more expensive. Brains (their), they are in China. And strangers ...
So China has a nuclear fleet, but ... But it will still be a fleet of the "second grade", with whom neither compare. Yes, bye, but nonetheless.
It is worth noting, once talking about the submarine, and the situation with non-nuclear boats. There, too, not everything is as beautiful as the Chinese would like. In general, they are great, after the Swedes and Japanese mastered the Stirling engine. But on the Chinese boats there is a “copier” from the Swedish engine already the first generation (80-s of the last century), while on the “Gotlands” there are already engines of the third generation.
I don’t know in detail what the Japanese have on the nine litters of the “Litter” project from the Kawasaki, but there is some certainty that the Japanese themselves could do it in Stirling, without copying something.
And a vivid example of the fact that Chinese boats are not the height of perfection is the behavior of the representatives of the naval forces of Pakistan and Thailand, who expressed a desire to buy low-noise boats of the 041 Yuan project, but they don’t rush to put money on the table.
Meanwhile, China nashtampoval already 15 of such boats and with might and main uses them. Perhaps, “Yuan” for export is a matter of time and price. And what is the price from China, no need to explain.
I want to say very briefly about aircraft carrier ships. Yes, nashtampuyut, good, inexpensive. Improve, good, able. But still it will remain the TAVKRs of the Soviet project 70-ies of the last century.
But the ship itself is only half the battle. There is also the second half - weapons and means of detection and protection. And here, too, not everything is rosy and with fireworks.
Literally 70 years ago, the value and power of a ship was determined by many parameters, such as armor, speed, magnitude of the main caliber, firing range, accuracy, and so on.
Today's day changes the approach to evaluation. And today, the main indicator for the main majority of strike ships is how much they can take on anti-ship missiles and how quickly these missiles can launch. And of course, the performance characteristics of the missiles themselves.
With this, the Chinese sailors seem to be in order, but everything looks in general perspective. There are rockets. But ... Begin the nuances.
Sadly, the armed forces of the Chinese Navy (and not only the Navy, as it were) have nothing of a domestic development. No need to go far and look, probably, 90% of the entire military potential is a "copier".
Take anti-ship missiles for a demonstration.
The most common Chinese-made CRP is the subsonic YJ-83.
A good rocket, as it is in fact the French Exocet, which has become a well-deserved classic, more precisely, its modification MM.40 blok 3 with a turbojet engine instead of a solid propellant.
YJ-62. Also subsonic, it's hard to say who is in the fathers, is similar to both the Soviet X-55 and Tomahawk.
Rockets are made with an eye on quite high quality weaponbut 70s of the last century.
There are newer models. YJ-18 and CX-1, already supersonic. It is difficult to say who they were “ripped off” from, but experts pay attention to the abundance of common features of the Chinese CX-1 and our “Yakhont”, which the Onyx and Brahmos П-800 are.
It seems that Russia did not sell the development and the missiles themselves to China, but here ... Export versions of Yakhont were supplied to Syria, Indonesia and Vietnam. Someone could well share for the goodness of his soul, or — then my congratulations — the Chinese intelligence clearly worked.
In general, it is so possible to consider everything for a long time. In fact, all that is in service with the PLA Navy is “copiers”. This can be attributed to all weapons standing on ships. Anti-aircraft missiles, radar, underwater acoustics, anti-submarine weapons, EW ... Everything was copied from some foreign samples.
I do not want to say that all imported goods are obviously bad. Especially Russian weapons. Not. But it is generally accepted that export models are somewhat different from the originals. Will be easier. And they see not so far, and fly not so fast. Well, you understand.
And there are things that are not sold at all. And in Ukraine they can not be ...
In the case of hostilities with a technically developed power, it may well turn out that all Chinese weapons will be an order of magnitude worse than that against which they will have to fight. And this is already a serious matter, as exemplified by the conflict over the Falkland Islands between advanced Britain and so-so Argentina.
Build a huge pile of ships - this is the first part of the case. The second part is to arm them. The third is to turn the armed corps into warships. The third part - the most difficult, as you know.
Here again it is a sin not to cite the example of “Liaoning”, or rather, a bunch of accidents and incidents on it. If in a nutshell - the Russian cruiser stubbornly does not want to be friends with almost Russian aircraft. This is the J-15 carrier-based fighter - this is an improved and modified Su-33 (thanks to the Ukrainians, supplied with the ship), which is still Su-27K.
Superior aircraft do not wish to board the improved cruiser. J-15 was a very problematic aircraft with an unstable control system, which led to a number of accidents and catastrophes. And, according to the available information, in China they have already sat down to work out a replacement for the frankly unsuccessful deck creation.
Well, another carnation. The Chinese fleet has no experience of fighting either above water, under water, or in the air. That is, it is, but ...
Even in World War II, the Chinese would not have fought. Japan defeated them too quickly. Yes, in the 50-s of the last century there were operations to seize territories, in 70-s China was kicking with Vietnam for the Paracel Islands, in 80-s they captured territories in the Spratly archipelago.
In general - local amphibious operations.
This is not about “the thunder of victory, resound,” no. About own practices in fleet management. About Experience with a capital letter.
The experience of managing large ship formations, the experience of deploying continuous tracking of ships of a potential enemy, the experience of submarine operations at a considerable distance from their bases ...
In general, what the fleets of the USA and the USSR have been working on for years during the Cold War. And this experience did not sink into the abyss, he remained in the manuals, manuals and recommendations. In the textbooks for students of the respective faculties of the academies.
Of course, you can all buy / steal / snake. A matter of effect.
And most importantly. Why does China need such a fleet?
Perhaps that is why I put the question in the title of the article. Difficult to correctly understand and respond.
On the one hand, it is clear that China will not go into direct conflict with its neighbors today. Islands and islands are not worth it to unleash even a local war. Today, China is just able to buy.
Moreover, China is constantly in front of the example of Russia, which for the quite legitimate accession of the Crimea has ogrebla sanctions on most tomatoes. To go and conquer territories in today's China is unlikely to occur to anyone. Here its would keep, by and large.
Well, really, the scraps of sushi like Spratly and Senkaku are not worth it. Not uniquely Crimea.
I think it’s not worth talking about an attempt to gain domination in the World Ocean. For only the attempt of such a rebellion will be followed by the appearance of all possible US forces, together with the allies. And here the option "China against all" is unlikely to be appropriate.
But the control over the adjacent territories, and especially the Indian Ocean, through which the lion's share of oil supplies to China from the Middle East goes, is quite.
Energy security is serious today and tomorrow is vital. Here, the reason why such rapid construction of warships of various (especially large) classes began in the PRC looks quite reasonable.
The fleet, which is guaranteed to protect China from the sea blockade or invasion from the sea. Of course, the idea of attacking a country with such a population and military potential looks fantastic, but the sea and land blockade is quite.
To underestimate a potential adversary is deadly dangerous, to overestimate is economically unprofitable. I do not set a goal to somehow humiliate the sea power of the Chinese fleet, I just think that it is necessary to treat it a little more skeptical. The amount of tonnage, which grows the PLA fleet, causes respect. The quality leaves much to be desired.
Perhaps, in order for the PLA Navy to become truly on the same level with the fleets of the leading world powers, it is even worth reviewing its policy in terms of scientific and technical activities.
Based on:
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/195967.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-5-most-lethal-navies-armies-air-forces-the-planet-17779
Information