China now has more warships than the U.S. — 350 vs. 293 — giving the communist regime the world’s largest navy, according to U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for China, Chad Sbragia. The People’s Republic is on it’s way to developing a force that can project power anywhere on Earth. Should the U.S. be very afraid? Is America now paying the price for reduction of ships, inadequate funding, and leadership choices that have more to do with politics than victory? Or is this news just more Pentagon budget boosting public relations?
Background Resource: Pentagon Report: China Now Has the World’s Largest Navy as Beijing Expands Military Influence [USNI.org | September 1, 2020]
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. Join us now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62j77CnpqZw
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Chinese Navy Now Floats World's Largest Navy: Should the U.S. Be Very Afraid?
21 replies on “China Now Floats World’s Largest Navy: Should the U.S. Be Very Afraid?”
Navy tactics have changed. The USA has forgone trying to hide in the big wide ocean because satellite technology and over the horizon radar makes the ocean small.Even subs can now be detected from orbit. They have switched to decoy drones. Australia sells one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka
1000 are deployed on USA, Australian and allied ships. The drone is a hovering rocket helicopter hybrid. When the anti-ship missile approaches one or more Nulka are deployed creating a fake radar profile of a ship moving away. The missile is led away and ends up crossing the real ships antimissile arc giving them an easy target. There are more conventional helicopter drones for long term decoy duties. It idea is to make 5 ships look like 30 and force the foe to waste 25 missiles or fighters on empty sea. This negates a 1 to 1 parity in ships and forces foes back to fighting in visual range or with “piloted” drone missiles that can be jammed and tracked back to their source.
The Burke destroyers and the new Chinese destroyers LOOK striking similar. But what’s under the hood, where it counts, is where there are major differences. I think the look is mos
Ohhh… Bill. Drachinifel would angrily disagree w/ you re: only two navies ever figured out naval air ops.
Though I strongly disagree w/ him re: armored flight decks vs the “Sunday Punch”. I do understand his argument.
Bill. Japan names their warship classes after famous warships. Mostly ones the USN & our allies turned into underwater attractions.
PLA-N ship classes use Type-xxx.
Hat tip to Drachinifel on his channel.
he did an excellent comparison of USN vs IJN damage control teams during WW-II.
Love Drach’s channel. Even bought his schematic of the HMS Thunderchild.
The RN really should name something Thunderchild.
More boats may only equal more targets.
If aircraft carriers are so vulnerable, the best armored and defended ships afloat, then there is no hope for the slow, thin skinned merchants. We may as well surrender now.
-SecNav John Lehman
Back in the last millennium, China produced an eight-foot tall basketball player on one of their teams. He was not a good player.
It takes more than being tall, and it looks like above a certain height, trying to overcome the moment arm of various limbs uses more energy than it’s worth.
I am always amazed when a player jumps/twists his body up towards the hoop among a welter of raised defending arms, and THEN he takes his hands and the ball and brings it/them up to the hoop around or through all of those arms to dunk it.
Yes, his arms are mostly held close to his body’s vertical axis.
What you have can make a small difference but what you do with what you have makes all the difference. You not only go to war with the army you have, they can only use what they have to fight the war. If “it” doesn’t exist, it is a waste of time wishing otherwise.
Okay, this is the danger of a live show with no prep time or warning about the issue.
Bill mentioned a few times the “Japanese” ships when he was clearly talking about the Chinese navy. A little off-putting, but it was even more confusing because he was saying the ships are very similar to the USN Arleigh Burke ships, but don’t have the same missile systems. But the Japanese navy DOES have ships which are effectively home built versions of the US Arleigh Burke. (I *think* starting with an “export” version of Aegis, but firing US or license built Standard missiles, upgraded since.)
But here’s where Bill will really smack himself in the head. Paraphrasing, “The navy that builds a “type 52” ship instead of giving it a name has no soul or naval history or tradition.” Also, “Nobody ever really figured out aircraft carriers except the US and the Japanese.” Bill, with his English ancestry and interest in WWII history, HAS to know about the development of the aircraft carrier and the English contributions to it, from the 20s all the way beyond the end of WWII, before they really started cutting back. And they operated a lot of them WWII.
By the same token, the most recent UK destroyer class is the “Type 45.” The ships have names, but that is the class designation. Don’t know why they did that, but it is hard to argue it is because the Royal Navy doesn’t have a tradition behind it.
Like I said, the hazards of an off-the-cuff show. I’d bet if you showed this episode to Bill and just whispered “Britain” to him he’d start banging his head on a table.
All of which is just minor stuff – his core points are spot on. Operating a modern navy effectively is a tad tougher than building one, and there is lots about the Chinese culture and system that works against it. Maybe not insurmountable (maybe!), but very, very hard.
It’s early and I have to goto work so I’ll only quibble w/ one point. I think Bill’s assessment of navies naming their new ships “Type” (insert number here) is pretty dead on. And the RN using “Type” is indicative of a soulless, bean-counting bureaucracy of HM government that’s been burrowing it’s way into the RN since, at least, the White Paper that got the Ark Royal cashiered in the 70s (oops).
The Type 45 is also called the D Class (Daring, Dauntless…), harkening back to the RN’s affinity for alliteration. So they ain’t giving up the fight. Even if the bureaucrats would choose the opposite of the RN admiral at Crete who said, It takes 3years to build a ship, it takes 300yrs to build tradition. And went in and saved the guys in Crete despite heavy losses.
Bill, On the money. The USN, The RN, The RAN and the RCN have historical stories of ships steaming or sailing into hopeless odds. The battles often end like HMS Jervis Bay, HMAS Yarra and USS Hoel but the reputation of their parent Navy is upheld as a minimum and sometimes the sacrifice saves other ships and lives.
Years ago now I read a book about the Graf Spee scuttling herself in harbour rather than fight a one sided battle with uncertain outcomes was an indication that the Germany Navy was not emboldened by its traditions and the author pointed out then that Western Navies like the USN, RN and my own RAN would never consider such an action because the national spirit is inculcated in the flag that flies at your mast head.
When it comes to seafaring the USN and her partner navies of the Commonwealth have solid keels on which to build.
I am a little surprised this topic wasn’t placed under a Right Angle session so as to include Steve Green. I had come to understand he also has significant background on things defense related. All this discussion of our flexibility, adaptability, individuality, etc., is fine and valid. And I believe Bill wanted to keep this segment’s flavor that we are serious, experienced, prepared, but “not cocky”.
But we may also yet find that the CCP names their next carrier the Zheng He. Not sure if they will run out of names after that, though. A more serious question is the Chinese geopolitical perspective. I gather (at least for now) that it is more defensive and protective of their trade and resource import access, but with the “Han pride” element of eventually encapsulating Taiwan as well as they have Hong Kong, etc. Thus they have area denial and “ship killing” missile capabilities that seem to put our forces at great risk. I hope our programs to counter that type of weapon are running full speed towards a successful conclusion. The space-satellite battles can’t be ignored either, and solutions there may also play into the “vacuuming up” of space debris covered in an earlier segment.
But by design and intent, our country is really a “creature of the Congress”, so our strengths and weaknesses reflect how wise those “clowns” are collectively. Not passing a real budget for many years does not inspire confidence; no current discussion about entitlements or reductions in debt or spending don’t help either. With that thought in mind I fear we are going to end up skating closer to the thinner ice than we would prefer.
The PLAN’s 2nd carrier, the Chinese half-sister to the Kuznetsov, is named Shen Dong. Just FYI.
Are you guys taking off for Labor day or can I expect another show on Monday?
Two shows going up this morning.
Great!!
Type 52 versus Arleigh Burke … hmmmm.
The impersonal nature of the Chinese name speaks volumes about how the leaders of Communist China do not value any human life other than their own individually-pathetic existences.
People’s Liberation Army Navy? So they have a PLAN? Can they execute it?
I suppose only time will tell.
Hah! Good on ya!