China, Per YEAR, building almost as many ships as UK can deploy at any given time.

www.portsmouth.co.uk...

Turned out to be a little more difficult than I'd have liked to to find statistics on this so just went with the one above. Without concern for quality of ships deployed, the UK has 20 deployed frigate+ type ships/boats (subs).

China is currently building 12 destroyers/cruisers/subs per year now for the foreseeable decade.

I think it is obvious that China isn't building a Navy for "prestige", they intend to put it to work. Most of their fleet are missile boats which are highly lethal. China is building 2 Type-055s a year now, to bring its number to 20+. The Type-055 as tested by DCS simulations which are reasonable since they can duplicate war game results like with the Boghammar attack in straights of Hormuz, suggests that a Type-055 is 2x to 4x as deadly as the Arleigh Burke and is comparable to the Ticonderogas if not surpasses them also.

www.navalnews.com...

It has far more hit capability and can expend a few of that classes' entire armaments before finishing them off with hypersonics.

But - I think it's down right impressive that the tonnage of warships China is building per year is now bigger than UK's deployable fleet.

And it's not just the tonnage, the number of ships is impressive too, 12 versus 20.

a reply to: DarthTrader

I think it's obvious they want to be able to control the East China Sea before they move to take over Taiwan.

What? One of the largest and most populated countries in the world is able to produce more than a tiny island?

I'm shocked!

a reply to: DarthTrader

wouldnt exactly be hard given the size of china and its resources
The UK's population is dwarfed by china

comparing the two's ability to produce warships is a bit of a bad comparison

had we not shut down some major ports and the UK's ship building industry then maybe they'd be on par.

seems like you are stating the obvious here ,so what is the point ?

Just for info , China also has the largest dredging ship fleet in the world

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: DarthTrader

wouldnt exactly be hard given the size of china and its resources
The UK's population is dwarfed by china

comparing the two's ability to produce warships is a bit of a bad comparison

had we not shut down some major ports and the UK's ship building industry then maybe they'd be on par.

seems like you are stating the obvious here ,so what is the point ?

Just for info , China also has the largest dredging ship fleet in the world

The US is building 1.3 naval ships/boats a year (subs and all surface combined) if you want a comparison of "peers".

I thought the following had an interesting perspective.

In naval warfare, a smaller fleet of superior quality ships is not a way to victory. The side with the most ships almost always wins.
By Captain Sam J. Tangredi, U.S. Navy (Retired)
[www.usni.org...]

a reply to: DarthTrader

And how many ships, carriers, boats, subs does the US already have?

China has a lot of catching up to do.

Also has a steep learning curve in carrier operation and operating a blue water Navy.

Sounds like fantasy to me. Dream on.

Also, they have pretty much

What good is a armada of ships when nukes are in play ?

a reply to: nugget1

Technological superiority is a bit of a leveller though.

a reply to: Spacespider

The Spanish Armada didn't fare too well against superior seamanship and tactics.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: nugget1

Technological superiority is a bit of a leveller though.

That's assuming certain parties haven't been selling our technology to the Chinese for decades.

a reply to: DarthTrader

"But - I think it's down right impressive that the tonnage of warships China is building per year is now bigger than UK's deployable fleet."

More like downright inevitable given the comparable size of the two.

Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious.

What's your point?

a reply to: nugget1

Maybe. But what experience of using it do they have?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: nugget1

Maybe. But what experience of using it do they have?

I couldn't tell you. I just posted the article because I thought it might be of interest to some.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: nugget1

Maybe. But what experience of using it do they have?

What experience does the US have using M1A1s or F-35s? LOL. For 30 years the US hasn't even used artillery in a peer conflict. The US hasn't used anything its made in an actual war. No experience what-so-ever.

Buncha Taliban kicked Joe Biden's ass.

I'm sure China can do a bit more than them.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Spacespider

The Spanish Armada didn't fare too well against superior seamanship and tactics.

This is why I get so angry with people like you - sorry - not at you personally.

But seroiusly?

The Spanish Armada had 68 warships only 24 were ships of the line (2/3rds were armed merchantmen but good enough for the time) against 197 British ships.

The British had 2x the ships of the line and had 5x the armed merchant men.

The larger Navy wins. Always. It's a proven fact from 2,500 years of history proven by the US Naval War College.


And while British seamanship and tactics would become incredible (look at the Indefatigable) the British tactics against the Spanish Armada was the equivalent of Futurama's attack on the Golden Death Stars.

Grab everything you could and throw it at them all at once.

Speaking of the Indefatigable that fight was 2 outclassed frigates against a first rate french Man-o-war and despite the excellent seamanship of both sides (they literally fought in a hurricane through the night with barely any moonlight breaking through clouds to give them better visibility) the french ship still lost.

Proof that 2 is better than 1.

a reply to: DarthTrader

Are you actually being serious?

As for using artillery (and is Ukraine on a peer status as Russia?) Russian military strategy is still based on the archaic philosophy of shelling and indiscriminately flattening civilian towns, cities and civilian targets.

The US?

No so much.

You have a habit of airbrushing stuff out of History. Bit of a Russian thing, apparently.

Buncha Mujahedeen kicked your ass.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DarthTrader

And how many ships, carriers, boats, subs does the US already have?

China has a lot of catching up to do.

Also has a steep learning curve in carrier operation and operating a blue water Navy.

Sounds like fantasy to me. Dream on.

Also, they have pretty much

China's fleet is already bigger than the US. Missiles matter more now like guns/cannons mattered more in the age of sail.

China has a helluva lot more missiles.

as an unqualified force how long will it take them to learn how to project that force effectively, it's not as simple as playing a board wargame and reading some imaginary rulebook..

nor as simply as picking a single opponent the British have always worked with allies to effect change even when it was the preeminent power it still projected power within coalitions.

its all about building coalition's a skill the Chinese have yet to learn effectively.. I'm sure they will in time but they have to fight real wars to learn those skills..

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

the Russians most successful pairings happened when they pivoted to side with the British, the last 3 examples are napoleon, the Kaiser and Hilter..

at least those Russians recognised that even if they failed to recognise change..