Chinese Navy of 2035: How Many Warships? Which Types?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- We project the size and composition of the Chinese PLA Navy in 2035. China's naval forces have grown exponentially over the past 10 years, and is showing little signs of slowing down.
Want to support the channel? - / eurasianavalinsight
CHAPTERS
00:00 - Background
02:36 - Aircraft carriers
06:02 - Surface combatants
15:03 - Submarines
23:29 - Amphibious warfare ships
Keywords: PLA Navy, PLAN, modern warships, US naval intelligence, Liaoning, Shandong, CV, Type 003, Type 004, Type 055, Type 055A, Type 052D, Type 052C, Type 052B, Type 051C, Type 054A, Type 054B, Type 056A, corvettes, destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines, Type 093A, Type 094A, Type 094, SSN, SSBN, SSK, Yuan class, Type 039A, Type 039B, Type 039C, Kilo class, Type 075 LHD, Type 071 LPD, Type 072 LST, naval technology, Chinese military
REFERENCES:
sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
China as a Twenty-First-Century Naval Power: Theory Practice and Implications, by Michael McDevitt
#chinaarmy
#chinesenavy
#pla
In my opinion, China will use the PLAN for: 1) territorial defence around China's coast; 2) taking back Taiwan; 3) protecting vital trade routes; 4) protecting its infrastructure projects in other countries. It's really not that difficult to figure out.
China will not invade Taiwan unless provoked into doing so. The most likely scenario is Taiwan declaring independence, propped up by US hype, which triggers it. Otherwise, they will simply overtake Taiwan economically, over a long period of time.
True - for the most part.
But it doesn't answer questions of procurement - although, it is right to approach procurement questions by analyzing actual strategic objectives: what is needed at minimum ?
@John Smith What is the purpose? Thailand, Korea and Japan, that one is better than Texas. frighten yourself
@John Smith
Floridastan, Texastan, Californistan, Darwinstan, Tasmanistan, and Londonstan.
@John Smith
I'm from Cubastan
Jokes aside, i believe what China wants with its navy is to be on par its economy size. We all remember what happened to Qing dynasty when military is lagging behind its enconomy significantly.
Painful memories
Late Qing dynasty main problems wasn't the military. It's main issues are internal corruption, instability, bad rulers, technological gap compared to western colonial powers from lack of industrial revolution etc
@@wuhui not really. what brought the empire down was by far the military, especially the navy.
None like the rising western powers at the time, the Qing empire was ESTABLISHED WORLD POWER, which means it has inherited not only the territory, but (most importantly) control of trade routes, control of trade relations with countries (global), control of existing treaties (political) with countries (again global), that the Chinese have accumulated through their multiple world shaping dynasties . it was the manager or lack of a better word the sustainer of the world order at the time.
it is because of this fundamental property of the empire
1. it has not fought a single war for a very long time, hence lagging behind in military technologies especially the naval.
2. theres basically no reason for industrial revolution to happen, if you have no war, no need for spikes on productivity, no tension in you immediately sphere of influence, and no reason for expansion or conquest simply because you already have all.
3. normally, itd be extremely difficult to break into the ESTABLISHED WOELD POWER, unless you can use a vastly superior naval to cut through trade routes that it control. and that, was the DESICIVE move that they did, to end the dominance of the Qing empire.
therefore, it was the military/navy that brough the once great empire to its very keens, nothing else really.
@@wuhui Which led to a weak navy.
经过这段痛苦的回忆，中国明白不但要富还要强，否则赚那么多钱给敌人交战争赔款吗？
And why have such a large navy? Largest economy on earth in PPP, largest trading partner, or one of the largest trading partner of most States on earth. Massive maritime commerce, need a massive navy to ensure its continuity, and thus the continuity of all maritime commerce. Same as the US claims, simple as.
说的非常好
True if your a economic power like USA, China, Japan, India or Germany etc having a strong navy is understandable to defend themselves and trade routes etc
Technically China and USA could have more assault carrier type ships , you can take the regular 600 ft cargo ships civilians use to make a assault carrier out of them besides the ship bridge area there's 500 ft of space on them to build a good size landing pad of helicopters and VTOL jets on them, and in the extra spaces put surface to air defenses, CiWS defenses on the bridge roof and cruise/anti ship missile platforms to use too and have large speed boats or yachts armed with weapons to support them etc
I like how a military analyst from Taiwan has less bias interpretation of PLA military buildup than American, Indian and Japanese analysis on the PLA military. I actually respect that. Thank you :3
Thanks for your support, sir!
@@EurasiaNaval
Aren't you Pakistani? Since when you become taiwan?
@@miguellines5907 Not from Pakistan
@@miguellines5907 Don’t think one from Pakistan knows the meaning of the flag the author is using. It is pre-republic.
@@miguellines5907 As a Chinese when I heard his pronunciation for the Chinese carrier names, I know he is native speaker. How can he be a foreigner?
China already laid the keel for the upcoming 100,000 ton nuclear powered type 004 supercarrier, which will be as big as the biggest American supercarriers, and they will build the type 005 supercarrier soon, which will be the worlds biggest supercarrier today and ever built, at 110,000 tons
VIVA CHINA🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
'What does Сhina wants to do with its navy?' That question is easily answered taking into consideration the number of aircraft carriers they want to build. They want to have enough (basically a relative parity) to defend themselves from the U$ navy due to the U$ constant provocations as of late.
Not entirely, our mid range anti cruise missiles already provided us more than the sufficient capability to defend us against the US navy, our navy fleet guarantees our sovereign in our claim in the South China Sea
@@user-ss7qs4ps1i and can help secure critical remote shipping lanes, in the event of a blockade.
When defending a democracy is considered "provocation"...
@@ulikemyname6744 It is a provocation when "democracy" has military bases next to your border.
@@ulikemyname6744 The U$ sailing its war ships right off the coast of Сhina is not defending anything. That's an offensive act which is called a provocation.
Of course returning the favor by supporting Independence of California/Texas/Florida and setting up a military base in Mexico.
That would be sweet.
The Democratic People's Republic of California (DPRC).
The Republican Republic of Texas (RRT).
The Party House Republic of Florida (PHRF).
A military naval missile bases in the port of Gulf of Mexico for the security of Mexican Oil & Gas drilling in the gulf.
THAT'S SWEAT PLAN!!!
@@miguellines5907the REPUBLICAN REPUBLIC of course
On the Type 055. I read recently that China won't be making more Type 055, it will stop at 8, as the current Type 055 doesn't offer that much more over 052D to justify the building cost. The PLAN is waiting for new tech to mature to have a bigger batch of Type 055A.
I've heard that being discussed too, but there's not too much consensus at the moment, so I will wait and see.
It looks like the modus operandi of the PLA when fielding new systems. Applies to fighter jets as well. The follow on versions are usually the penultimate ones.
Considering they are building ships 9 & 10 as we speak they are absolutely building more.
They are far more than incremental upgrades over the 052D and in fact serve very different missions. As well as having almost double the VLS capacity the tubes of 055 are longer and have a larger diameter meaning it can be armed with ordinance that won’t fit in the tubes of any other Chinese warship.
They recently tested VL AShBM from an 055 and there’s been discussion that it will be equipped with the HQ-19 ABM it may also be able to carry DF-100 class hypersonic cruise missiles with a far longer range than the YJ-18 of the 052D.
The 055 also has much improved radar, fire control and combat management systems as well as flag facilities to allow it to serve as a flotilla flagship.
The 052D is an equivalent of the USN Arleigh Bourke flight II, it’s a general purpose destroyer that specialises in AAW while retaining a powerful land attack and some ASW capabilities.
The 055 is far more offensively orientated and disregarding it’s classification as a destroyer it’s a cruiser, being considered S such by the USN. It’s designed to complement the long range land attack and anti ship capabilities of a 003 CBG or provide the primary long range strike ability of the 001/002 CBG while also being the hub of the flotillas AAW network with its superior combat management systems. As well as this it will likely be responsible for the flotillas ABM defences.
Perhaps to your disappointment, the second batch of 055 has already begun construction. Photos of the ship being built in the shipyard have been exposed, and it is confirmed that this batch is still eight, and it is the first batch of upgraded models, which may have electromagnetic guns and laser weapons
@@somowon If that's truth. then it just mean the tech the PLAN wants on the new batch of 055 got matured enough
People always struggle with non-linear functions, the predictions for 2035 are basically linear extrapolation of current rates extended for 13 years, if you did the same 13 years ago in 2009 you'd arrive at ~8x Type 052C and ~12x Type 054A by 2020, and people did predict that back then, but yet here we are.
Another thing people struggle with is passage of time, China's 2035 is also US' 2035, American Burkes built in the 80s and 90s will also have added 13 years to their service life, the technology on them will be 13 yeras older, and the US only has enough ship building to replenish a small fraction of the current fleet. i.e. naval match-up by 2035 isn't going to be China in 2035 vs US inventory in 2020, all Ticos would be gone by then, for example.
And last thing is end point, people like to imagine some sort of ceiling defined by the US, but there's nothing preventing a country with 1.4 billion people from operating a navy 4x larger than the USN, and a navy of that scale certainly ain't going to be all hanging out in East Asia.
Great Analysis.
Time is now imploding thanks to Quantum Ai and Battery advances. Your phone could launch 100 first generation rockets to the Moon! Hypersonic EMP Nuke....Tik Tok Too Late...Times Up
But if linear growth is not assumed, the estimation will simply fall anywhere.
@@joehill9707 Or you can look at demand and ability, then assume if ability can meet demand the demand will be meet.
Case in point: China is extremely secretive about their nuke sub fleet, which leads to many to assume China only have 6x Type 093. If you instead look at China's demand for SSNs, which is to counter the US navy, and then look at them building the world's largest SSN factory at Huludao, the idea that China forgot about SSNs for 10+ years and # of Type 093 is still only 6 today would obviously be absurd.
Same with navy, look at capacity, look at demand, China has the world's largest ship building capacity, by a large margin, and China also has the goal of being the dominant global power, these two alone should inform you of China's naval build up rate.
This is easily one of your best videos to date, exceptionally well done! I agree on the ~90 destroyers around 2035, on the 16x and 8x split on the 055 and 055A, I believe the A will come much sooner than many assess and they’ll be closer to a 12/12 ratio. Couldn’t agree more on submarine projection, expect it to be many more.
Thanks JD. This is one of these speculative topics people will have a wide range of views on. I think despite the slowing in the Chinese economy, the ratio of defence spending to GDP still has a lot of room to increase because it is still relatively low. According to foreign estimates, China spends under 2 percent of GDP on military, so it can increase this to around the US level (around 3.8 percent), while still being sustainable and despite the current economic difficulties. Persumably, the priority for any addiitonal funding would be to the naval forces. I was a bit loathe to get into this area in the video because it kind of requires lots of elaboration (including on the difference between nominal GDP and PPP measures). So, I think China can afford to procure lots of new ships, while maintaining the old units until they are retired.
@@EurasiaNaval Oh absolutely, I could see that scenario play out, not only would a moderate increase in their defense spending go a substantially long ways to achieving their goals, the offset of their purchasing parity will continue to be even greater!
Love your video, very informative and your predictions are based on sound evidence and reasoning.
Glad you like them!
Awesome professional content...dude your the best!
I appreciate that!
In fact, the Type 052D destroyer as an air defense capital ship plays a huge role in the fleet. It can not only carry a variety of missiles, but most of them are air defense missiles. The Chinese fleet has a large number of anti-aircraft capital ships to protect aircraft carriers. Unless you can fire all the missiles in your fleet within a minute, it will still be very difficult to damage the carrier.
What does China wanna do with her massive future naval force……probably freedom navigation around Hawaii. U.s west coast is nice for sign seeing as well. Perhaps an overseas naval bases on Nicaragua, Venezuela, Solomon island…..:)
China CPC know wars coming, prepared before ~2024 war against a lone China, lasting less then 3 years of extreme naval battles ;
Ending with transfer of Supremacy!
2026 *Asia Regional war* between small Asian nations close to China, created like middle eastern wars. To drag China in
(already started 1st internal conflict then between nations)
World wide war by end of this decade 2030
World depression
That's gonna get their knickers in a twist. You can already hear the whining on twitter. Assuming American didn't turn into a Christofascist corpo-state and nuke China.
Authoritarian rule isnt compatible with the concept of a prosperous society.
@@brianpaul5667 Your rightl. The US is authoritarian, an economic basket case and a total shithole. Poverty is their biggest export industry next to endless war.
@@rodneykiehne5212 cry more pussy
Thank you for the comprehensive video.
Glad you liked it!
Great Video, as we're used to see from you.
I think it's a good bet the next carrier will be conventional and will be the sister carrier, same design maybe a tweak here and there. Like you said it will be quicker, which at this point is important, and also the logistics/inventory and maintenance of these carriers just more cost effective. Also I might think they may be waiting for the LFTR tech that is being currently being demonstrated in the desert in Xinjiang. Blue water navy not important right now but being able to extend power into the second chain is important.
excellent analysis.
Sweet I was just thinking of you channel, really hope you keep up with the Belgorad too as it was reported sailing when info becomes available. On Drax Question period I received an answer on the Japan conversion F-35 Vtol landing speed of carrier at least 30 knot was confirmed to me on a previous conversation we had .I had no idea software is the key .I have no answer on older Harrier limitations
Thanks for the update!
❤Great compilation and commentary… sweet as, mate. Keep ‘em coming thanks🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🌹👍
Thanks 👍
Very informative.
Thank you, good work as always, and may I ask where were you informed that the construction of type 004 has begun?
There is information from reputable alleged insider with military links (who I won't name here) suggesting the Type 004 is 'on the way', although he stopped short of stating it is being built. Separately, the South China Morning Post recently reported that the fourth aircraft carrier may still be a conventional carrier, and that work has resumed after a two-year delay because of technical problems, citing an anonymous military source.
4tb carrier will definitely be longer then current 3rd carrier thus likely to be bigger
4th carrier parts were said to have been ordered in ~2020 or earlier? other reputable videos and gossips that 5th carrier is also underway (design completed ~2020)
Reason:
3rd carrier Fuijian was initially designed for a steam-powered CATOBAR; there was a delay
by the time 3rd carrier was designed, and construction were underway, China electronics were world top and their EMALS were designed...
Thus a comparison in real installation was ordered... Outcome EMALS beat steam-powered
EMALS runway are longer then steam-powered
Thus 3rd carrier have now less deck area then it was initially designed (with steam-powered in mind), due to the EMALS
Thus 4rth carrier which is under construction will definitely be have longer deck runway, likely slightly larger with at least enough capacity compare to initial 3rd carrier design
Under construction is the Fujian 2.The same technology as Fujian has been slightly improved.
Recently PLAN have another video with a gray cover on. Major good gossip channels have pointed out, the speaker who is an officer (vice captain) on China aircraft carrier, *this beating heart under the cover had to be pointing to a new heart for the carrier and they guess this is everyone waiting for nuclear-powered heart of a carrier.* Also there are 4 strips on the cover supposedly indicating this may be a 4th type of power system... Or is it for the 4th carrier?
A reputable US magazine (said by some gossip channel) have also come out saying the next carrier (~4th) will be nuclear-powered...
I on the other hand thinks if 2 aircraft carriers are underconstruction 4th carrier is likely to remain conventional and 5th carrier will be nuclear-powered
There's also a white line coming out of the cover looks like an antenna! No one say much about what it is...
I think it may be antenna for remote monitoring of the heart in case if the system cable is cut eg in fire in battle...
noted PLAN in other China navy gossip videos indicated immediate future goal is to improve speed & ease of nuclear-powered maintenance ; to cater for *All large navy ships to have nuclear-powered propulsion heart!*
That is all large protective ships along side the carrier will be nuclear-powered...
Destroyers, missile cruisers...
This will mean China military naval technology will clearly have surpass the current old West Supremacy, EU and current only superpower
And her navy will truly be a blue water navy and does not need fueling for decade(s) and should be able to have quicker ease maintenance for her nuclear-powered generators.
IMHO this is no nonsense and it will happen, close to end of this decade
China needs more submarines like Yasen class i think, they are perfect counter to carriers.
One of the biggest worries would be the Russians sharing their missile and submarine technology with the Chinese. The Yasens are very capable, but laughable numbers and likely manned by low quality leadership. The Chinese could produce 10x as many Yasens…
very nice video
Would love to see maps along with your photos together. As a former history teacher your shows are fantastic.
Your best one yet. Good job man 👍
Glad you think so!
I hope every U.S. General is watching this and all your other videos very informative!👍
Good video
This is kind of off topic but has anyone ever told you that your accent sounds German or, is it just me. Also, your channel is fantastic!
I think it's more of a Aussie/Kiwi accent.
Great video although I would think that recent PLAN expansion is akin to German empire’s navy build up pre-WW1 or US’s leading up to 600 ship navy of Reagan. US in WW2 is just a different beast, mainly because peacetime is nowhere near wartime production capacity, they did it in less than 5 years but in the end her navy eclipsed every other nations (including her allies) combined.
thats because the us had the majority of the world's industrial capabilities once the europeans had bombed themselves for a year or so. today, chinese industrial capability is larger than us+germany+japan combined.
Thanks for the comment. Although I don't think I'd agree that there is a strong parallel between the PLAN's buildup and that of the Kaiserliche Marine leading up to WWI. To really go into this would require a lot of time and detail. In short,
Germany faced major land-based military threats on multiple fronts which limits how much it can invest in its navy. China does not face significant land-based threats right now, at least not relative to its economic size. Potential threats are either neturalised by political compromise (Russia and North Korea), or highly defensible border (India). Germany also never had sufficient shipbuilding capability to fully match that of the UK.
why fight wars if you can trade for money and development? the germans had no choice but to build up, china on the other hand, they have all the choices they can possibly need for the taken, so no, theres no comparison.
This time is China has the then USA manufacturing capability!
What if China builds 2 nuclear subs every year from now till 2035? if so, then there will be 48 nuclear subs by 2035.
Bohai has the capacity to launch 4 nuclear attack sub simultaneously in a year or 2 SSBN a year.
Nuclear subarine can fite jilin 3??
They're not going to launch them in bulk, you need to man and operate them which takes time
They are also decommissioning a lot of older submarine like Ming-class and probably Kilo-class and Song-class.
This is the same with air force. Rapid decommissioning of older asset even first generation Su-27 and J-11A to be replaced with J-10, J-16 and J-20.
Total force size remain the same but the quality is vastly improved.
@@mjabb02 The total size of PLAAF and PLA Ground Force will refuse as they'll decommissioned a sh"t ton of Soviet platforms like T-59 and Mig-21 clones with more sophisticated J-16s and J-11Ds but they'll be less in numbers.
But PLAN is going to increase in numbers by every metric, people will say they'll struggle to man their ships but they fail to look at the millions of technical workers and engineers Chinese universities and colleges are churning out every year, it won't be difficult for them to man Navy.
But yeah it would be a difficult task
Do a video on Chinese coast guard fleet
There has been a ship construction proposal selection take place in Dalian. Many have been guessing it is all about the type 076 or 055A or 005 construction.
Well done China PLA keep on developed more powerful Navy warship in the world. Made in China. 💪💪👍👍👏👏❤❤💯💯
There's only one reason to be putting up a force such as this and that's for a direct military confrontation with the USA.
The more equal the naval force on each side, the less likely one side will take the risk to attack.
@@commie5211 It's already acknowledged by US military planners that the USN cannot penetrate Chinese coastal defenses. (Read Brose's "The Kill Chain") With six or more aircraft carriers the PLAN will be able to sink or take out the one USN aircraft carrier battlegroup in the Western Pacific, seize Taiwan and set up anti-ship and anti-aircraft defenses on the island. The first island chain will be broken.
The USN will be left with less than 11 aircraft carrier battlegroups along with forces spread across the Western Pacific. If the USN has to keep at least two battlegroups in the Atlantic and Med theaters, two or three in dock for repairs and refitting, then, that leaves about five or so to take on the PLAN. That won't be enough even if you include light aircraft carriers.
The ChiComms are planning on having Taiwan by 2049.
To defend & to put d fear of god into d hearts of barbarians.
China had tried to procure *three fleets* since it started to modernize the Qing navy in the 1880s.
If assets are distributed along it's three operational shores, no single fleet appears much different from say the British Royal Navy with two carriers and two dozens of surface escorts.
If Britain had the resources and manpower of China, it's navy would surely be much larger, spread across the globe - something China did only once, briefly in 5000 years...
@@christophmahler The ealier dynasties were all land powers, their main trade routes were know as the silk road. Also, Ming dynasty had a pretty large fleet too(taken Taiwan back from the Netherland in the 1600s), back then they were trading with south asia/middle east though water.
@Eurasia Naval Insight Where did you get the video of the type 055 at vostok 2022
Apologies - I lost the source, but just have a youtube search for Vostok 2022 naval, and you should find it. That's a scary jiangshi profile pic btw!
@@EurasiaNaval haha I "stole" it off art station. It's a work of some digital artist based in China, a good blend of the jiangshi and sci-fi I thought. Aw it's a shame that you lost the source. I did search for it on youtube before your reply, I will keep searching and let you know if I find it.
Maybe a future video on naval missiles and aircraft? China's drone submarines? China's torpedo developments? China's anti-aircraft/missile laser technology?
You can see through satellite imagery that the 004 is already at an advanced stage of construction.
2025 would probably be the latest we could expect it to be launched.
One should take a look at the official line.
*Has the People's Liberation Army Navy declared that supercarriers are **_the main stay_** of the Navy - versus e.g. submarines, guided missile frigates, 'massed' assault ships or underwater drones* ?
If there is no such explicit declaration, *it shouldn't be assumed that the PLAN will simply imitate the United States in grand strategy, procurement and operational means* (supercarriers may have greater firepower and power projection, yet may be as easily sunk in one incident as dozens of dispersed assets over a longer period).
The apparent success of sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missiles and drone swarms in the Black Sea is a rather strong argument that US naval power may have been outdated already since the end of the Cold War - that *_qualitatively_** 'hybrid' forms of warfare and intensive training up to divisional level should receive much greater attention than mere equipment stats* .
*Can China repeat it's relative operational success of the Korean War* - now much better equipped and supported along shores - or would troops and cadres lack operational cohesion and ingenuity to induce similar US intelligence failures - due to decades of virtual wargaming and lack of existential challenges ?
Can China project power into Afghanistan and Pakistan to stabilize against US terror and 'regime change' coups - e.g. without alienating India ?
Can China stabilize the Horn of Africa against the US staging of the Tigray War - without 'overextending' itself ?
These are rather pressing questions in comparison to mere tonnage or ship building capacity (although the latter obviously crucial).
Given that the US Navy _appears_ to be in disarray - apart from submarine and LUUV procurement - and it should be questioned if that is _a ruse_ - and that the Royal Navy is hardly operational (e.g. completely lacking surface warfare means beyond the F35b - and likely unrealistic budgeting even of 'a mere handful' of Type-26 and Type-31) *one must ponder whether the **_relevant_** questions are asked* ...
My personal view on PLAN force composition is that it is really a hybrid or combination between (1) the US Navy, focused on carrier-based offensive power and escort-based defensive power, and (2) the Soviet and later Russian Navy, centred around anti-access tools (bastion regions), powerful anti-ship missiles and submarines envisaged for anti-surface work. The PLAN is making some effort to procure carriers, develop 5th gen carrier fighters and AEWAC, but relatively slowly compared to their other arms. Meanwhile, PLAN sees the value in using surface assets as offensive platforms (e.g. use of YJ-18, YJ-12, YJ-21, etc) in addition to defense. It obviously continues to build up land-based ADA2 capabilities. Does this hybrid approach reflects a simple desire to hedge in the face of uncertainty regarding the future nature of naval warfare? Or does it reflects a conscious plan to achieve a desired endpoint - a force composition it wants? It's hard to tell at this stage.
I understand your interest in these broader questions. What does China want? What could it do with the newfound forces at its disposal? What could it do? These are the more interesting questions. My perception is that China is militarily a very cautious actor, who perceives time to be on its side, and therefore as a baseline I wouldn't expect too much for at least the next 20 years. I do think though that the focus on modernising its naval forces reflects a long-held view to reinforce its relationship with Russia, to avoid giving an impression of northward expansionism, and focus on its issues in the Pacific. Conversely, a shift back to the traditional emphasis on land forces with an eye on the defence of the northern border would worry Russia.
@@EurasiaNaval
"My personal view on PLAN force composition is that it is really a (...) combination between (1) the US Navy, focused on carrier-based offensive power (...), and (2) the Soviet and later Russian Navy, centred around anti-access tools (bastion regions), powerful anti-ship missiles and submarines envisaged for anti-surface work.(...)"
That sounds entirely _plausible_ to me - yet it is also so _fundamental_ when it comes to the interpretation of any procurement or political events that *it warrants a long form video, explaining and **_documenting_** that view* (maybe You have made such a video, already).
The problem in direct comparisons is that *the US Navy has neglected the defensive escort aspect* and is now faced with aging hulls that arguably still lead in air-defense and sensors, but lack surface warfare capability - with no solution in sight, but *the US is instrumentalizing entire NATO fleets for it's 'interoperable' frigate missions e.g. at the Horn of Africa, the Baltic or the Arctic* - a reality which a Sino-Russian alliance has to take fully into account.
"(...) a shift back to the traditional emphasis on land forces (...)"
*That naval procurement serves a diplomatic function is a noteworthy observation* .
Certainly such was the case e.g. with the German *'fleet in being'* prior to WW I, _supposed_ 'to worry Britain into signing similar agreements with Germany as it had with Japan' *(Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902)* _when it fact _*_German procurement lead to a British remote blockade and their support for a Franco-Russian attack upon Germany_* ...
If Chinese covert investment into submarines - as You suggest when comparing increased submarine production capacity - is of diplomatic nature then there would probably be substantial technology transfer between the Russian fleet and the PLAN - possibly to the point where China builds assets for allegedly 'backwards' Russia.
Documenting such traces of cooperation (strategic noise reduction technology, hypersonic missile and air defense innovations) could produce strong arguments for that thesis.
For now, we only have proof of joint naval exercises toward the Arctic *North East Passage* which will force the US to shuffle their global fleet deployments (as was the case with the German 'Deterrence Fleet' in 1914).
There is also the factor of the SCO and the interests of India as a predominantly maritime power.
Which brings to the example of the PLAN presence in Djibouti.
I'd argue that timelines of 2030 and 2035 are a reflection of the politics of the 20th century.
In February 2022 WW III has already started - even if most people have trouble to recognize it as *an existential confrontation between two global power blocs* - to be solved in 'unconditional surrender'.
I believe the Suez Canal is still of value to the West, e.g. toward a NATO blockade in the Strait of Malacca to which China - after being sanctioned - is currently still vulnerable - and that therefore the Horn of Africa can't be yielded to Western control.
A specific question could be: what would a Sino-Russian - possibly Indian - task force require to deny the West access to the Indian Ocean.
The answer would dictate near term procurement.
This is a rough outline of a possible scenario, but rather realistic, I believe.
“Biden said about waging war on China, not on Russia” will be the talking point of upcoming 20th Party Congress this month. Number here reflects 19th Party Congress’ consensus, if I may add.
فعلا فكرة بناء اساطيل حربيه قويه جدا ليس لجزب المعارك بعيدا عن اليابسه بل للدفاع عن الماء فهو من اقوى اسلحة البشر ان لم يكن اقواها على الاطلاق منطقيا ما يدعم الحياه يدعمها بشتى السبل
Just 12 years away. I would not be surprised if China builds some huge tankers with a runway and hanger deck. About 10 times the capacity of today’s largest tankers. Committed to transporting oil from the Mideast to China. The runway makes it an untouchable ship because it’s own military presence, unless a country wants to start a real war. Such a large ship could be nuclear powered
I think china next carrier will still be a conventional powered, my guess is they will build 2 more fujian class before proceeding with a nuclear carrier
it depends if war is coming or not. if theres no war in near future, china will always use new parts to "test", its pure waste of both resource and time to build same ship while china is trying to shorten the tech distant with leading super carrier. if china spend money and resource to increase number rather than researching new tech. that means china sense us threat is increasing.
With her steel production, it is good experience to build newer ships so that as the developing nations improve their economies, they will buy them. And only with continuous experience in such constructions you can both improve and build better ships for both commercial as well as for the navies of the world. I am sure you can out build the rest of the world just like your HSR!
I am impressed and surprised by how fast China is catching up with the west in military power. There can be no doubt that China will be close to or in par with the US in 2030 to 2035 in terms of naval power.
A good update. But I believe China will add a bigger drone submarine force and build a new class of missile attack destroyer, ships that will have 200-300 VLS cells. Probably no more Heli carriers but light aircraft carriers that will will launch mainly drones. A submersible destroyer is also possible, survivable warships will become more important. China has launched hundreds of satellites and is building high attitude surveillance drones, a submersible warship makes sense, it can depend on an integrated surveillance system and need not be surface bound.
But I think the real game changer will be in space in the form of orbiting bombers instead of ships. A few of these will take out a whole fleet in minutes. The US has set a precedence with its space force, China will likely follow. This will change the character of the naval force.
Absolutely i think drone carriers and drone like kamakize are bei g made
Really hard to say how drone warfare will turn out. Putting so many eggs into drone subs is a huge risk. I think they will maintain a small drone sub for specialized roles and not get too many.
Space is formally barred from weaponization by treaty - but the decay of US diplomacy and the development of the Russian SARMAT RS-28 is effectively just that - striking across the globe from any angle with precision.
Of course at that point, _all_ satellites will be shot from the sky - requiring conventional forces that can network data without (e.g. drone swarms)...
The target of orbital bomber is too far away from the current human technology, and the unmanned submarine has the fatal defect of electromagnetic interference. On the contrary, I believe that the ship based anti-ship ballistic missile will become the trend of the development of the Navy. Shield ships cannot effectively intercept it. At least, in my opinion, the rules of modern naval warfare have begun to change. The next task is to further strengthen the range and speed, and develop the anti submarine capability. Khrushchev's idea of ballistic missile battleships in the 1960s is correct, Now China is also installing Eagle Strike 21 shipborne anti-ship ballistic missiles on a large scale. The sea strike group consisting of 055 and 052d can be equipped with Eagle Strike 21, which is a killing game. It is estimated that the number of these two types of ships will reach nearly 60 in 2030. The aircraft carrier 003004 will not become the main force of the fleet, but will replace the ships that will become the auxiliary attack and find the attack target. This is also a ghost of the Soviet Union😂😂
@@tonychris6809
"Khrushchev's idea of ballistic missile battleships in the 1960s is correct (...)"
Admiral *Sergey Georgyevich Gorshkov* ... Krushchev had to be convinced that STALIN's battlecruiser fleet was not completely obsolete with the deployment of nuclear arms, but would multiply it's potential...
To have _hypersonic_ missiles like e.g. the 3M22 Zircon fit into vertical launcher cells like of the on Buyan-M class littoral zone corvettes, traveling from one coast to the other via guarded canals - as well as being excempt from arms control treaties of ground force mobile ballistic missile launchers ends the era of 19th century maritime power politics of threatening all coastlines, equally while attacking in force at a single point when the defending continental power is stretched thin.
"(...) unmanned submarine has the fatal defect of electromagnetic interference (...)"
Sound travels so far that UUVs can be remote controlled via encrypted sonar, yet for simple screening and skirmishing an automated patrol algorithms would suffice - e.g. to blur background noise for opposing submarine hunting forces - hulls from titanium alloy would make these vessels difficult to track from air.
These ships will make PLN blue water navy, their sights and plans seems to be set far from just Taiwan.
By 2035/7
Aircraft Carrier - 9
Destroyers - 86
Frigates - 152
LHA - 12
LPD - 20
LST - 20
Balistic Mis Sub - 16
Nuc Power Sub - 22
Diesel Attack Sub - 68
Amazing assessment, let's go China!
You’ve said before you lived in Taiwan, I would like to know your perspective on the U.S. involvement in the China/Taiwan issue?
Good looking carrier. Like most of the current/new gen of major surface combatants I’ll admit. Not a fan of the white paint scheme though. Their submarine force and the. Urgent state of its modernization and expansion never seem to get much attention. Not sure if that’s because China keeps that shit tight or that people find subs not as flashy though being orders of magnitude more dangerous.
chinese conventional subs are quite good. the issue for any sub expansion plan is china needs nuclear subs, and the current ones simply arent good enough, thus china has not started t really mass produce them. and this is one area that is hard to catch up on, because the nuclear reactor tech isnt really dual use so the general improvement in civilian industry cant help as much(unlike say, electronics) plus no ones sells military nuclear tech, thats one area even russia won't sell.
unfortunately, the age of automation is here...who needs nuclear subs that require 50 men crew...near a reactor...long ass shift...pro resistance to accidents... when you can sit at the radar station somewhere, and remote control it with a nice coffee on your hands, and let the ai deal with the shit.
@@mxn1948
"(...) thats one area even russia won't sell (...)"
I challenge that view.
If it is imperative to Russian national security that the PLAN has access to reactors - it will.
@@cyberywayne3128
That's also likely a factor.
Not just that subamrine warfare can be automated - but that 'it's hard to find good personnel, these days', unless there are kindergardens on the submarine.
@@christophmahler sure, if its life or death. they arent there yet and im not seeing that they will be in the medium term, and in a another 15 years china would have caught up at least to russia given the huge disparity in R&D spending and overall budget between the two. left over soviet science can only get you so far.
What is aejis again
Hiw about the round about 85 bigger ships in the chinese Coast Guard, you don't count them...??
China is being practical. The only ships that can remain hidden from satellites are subs(nowadays dozens of satellites are launched from a single rocket so satellites will be continuously watching). And with the long range of anti ship cruise missiles, surface ships won’t last 24 hours in a real war. I won’t be surprised if China does build 20 atomic SSN simultaneously as tension escalates.
The conventional powered subs will probably outnumber their atomic powered subs by 5 to 1. I expect hundreds of small battery powered autonomous subs that work as a team with nuke powered subs (including routine recharging from the atomic sub while submerged. Inductive linked same as cell phones are recharged without plugging in). In 2035, the subs will get targeting info from satellites and launch long range anti ship cruise missiles).
It’s not a million dollar question but hundred billion dollar question
CHINA PRC PLAAF PLAAN will fly, sail, wherever their are international waters & more ! Andrew is having a nervous breakdown in full view of worldwide coverage, he needs constant medical care & supervision to ensure he is safe & well !
Who is Andrew, just wondering? Hope he is OK
碎片信息：
第四代低温堆技术非常成熟第五代小型化也已经稳定。信息核心：核反应堆的技术符合我国相关无害化设备标准，可以应用于船只之上！
第二…完全不同的转换介质，摆脱了烧热水模式
第三…其他领域的飞跃，比如压超大压力容器无缝一次成型技术
第四基于航空通讯技术的跨越不同传输介质的通讯同步技术量产化
标准化的深入，从原材料基础矿物开始的全系统标准化，风险流程管控技术…
054B will be more capable than Type45 destroyer which also has 2 panel aesa and only 48 small vls that can't quadpack. Overall i consider Type 45 inferior to japanese Akizuki class for example.
i'm not sure if 054B will have full suite of dragon eye radar onboard as they're quite pricey thing to have
I think China is focused on next-gen destroyers and drone carriers rather than a regular carrier, a carrier is just a good to have option but not necessary for the Chinese navy
thank god for China🇨🇳 Russia🇷🇺 North Korea🇰🇵 and Iran🇮🇷
I think 470 - 490 will be my prediction but I don't about those support ships.
9:55 looks like china r gonna use 055, 052DL , 054B for their carrier battle group . 052c or other ships should retire as 054B enter mass production.
Hopeful at year 2035 USN will operate 1000 LCS but nothing else.
This is necessary to serve as deterrence as well as defense against attacks from US & its allies.
The 055 costs about $900 million and the Burke 3 costs about $1.825 billion. I don't see any hope of the Americans winning an arms race.
I would not trust a communist country for quality or ability to maintain any force for long
除了航母，其他会提前好几年完成。可预期未来2-6年台海会有风险，大概率会加速。
風雨欲來的感覺了，台海戰爭的風險可以說是1950年後最高的一次，96年那次比起現在的氣氛根本小巫見大巫
@@ksc7957 之前的几次台海危机其实在世界范围内看并没有什么发生的必然性，更多是小摩擦。而这一次世界范围内面临的种种危机都到了要点暴的时刻，跟一次大战前的情景像极了。西方世界的头部国家美国危机重重，一轮轮的加码就是奔着要引爆去的
新一批次航母会批量生产了，预计4艘，甚至都可能生产6-8艘，航母肯定会提前达到6艘
核潜艇可能都要批量生产
@@ksc7957 战争一定会在2049年前爆发，我以前看新闻什么台海军演也没太当回事，甚至还自嘲鱼又要遭殃了，但随着中美矛盾又一次达到历史顶点以及台独势力的日渐强大让我感觉，战争真的不远了。
China 🇨🇳 PLA navy today currently have two aircraft carrier ready for combat and the third Fujian aircraft carrier is ready for combat in the year 2025.
imo 001 and 002 are training carriers for navy pilots to hone their landing skills on carrier.... the real thing will be from 003 on when they can have full complement of different aircraft types
@@fatdoi003 001&002 can still fight in the war
@@junizhao 001/002 can only be good for regional theatres as there's no AWAC or aerial refueling capabilities. Those need to be come from ground based airforce...
003 will be trainning carrier as well, since its first catapult carrier. and i wonder if theres enough electricity generated for the catapult to operate constantly during war time. so they definately need to research/test nuclear power in 004/005 to be combat ready.
As of today, China has the largest navy in the world and in my opinion, the most powerful one once all counters against others are considered
By the number of battle force ships, you would be right on China having the largets navy, although not by other metrics, for example tonnage and missile counts. These other metrics are increasing quickly though!
@@EurasiaNaval Tonnage yes I agree us has all those rusting old carriers which are too costly to maintain for regular non-wartime deployment except ~3 at a time that are becoming even more obsolete day by day. However as for missile count I strongly believe PLA has the advantage while considering the land ones that will counter all of Pacific but both sides really don't know how many each others have
@@GoldenKhanate06China Steel stronger and better than America.. China built the Oakland bridges, Americans went to Shanghai to test the steel.. CHINA welder is one of the best in the world. America spends US$870+ billion. China spends US $260+ billion. Quantities are the same. Labour costs America 5 China 1. Material America 4 China 1. US media dare not info the 7 universities to produce weapons, Space Station, rail gun, missiles and drones. This 7 U are better than the Beida and Qinghua U
the Question is how many capable Warships will they operate.
Sell a few Type 55s and Shandong to Russia in exchange for... Yasen M, mining rights to iron ore or coal, drilling rights... I think China has very sellable naval products.
But Russia probably can't afford it, . Maybe 052D.
Concurrently, China should continue improving its satellite & space defence system that will provide critical support to its military defence against aggression & attacks from US & its allies
The type 055 destroyer is matched in firepower by only the kirov class(russian "battlecruiser")? What about ROKN Sejong the great class destroyer or even the US Ticonderoga class cruiser with its large VLS capacity? The type 055 isn't the almighty powerful destroyer of destroyers. A good ship? Yes. Well armed? Yes. But un-matched? No.
How many spaceships will be built in 2049
Million Dollar question !!!, in my opinion think its Trillion Dollar question.
You can't grow that fast and not suffer from personnel issues.
Wow...the Great Firewall is not working properly. 🤪🤪🤪🤪
The answer is in the question - what is the US doing with their fleet? Power projection all over the world as a hegemon. China will hold against and for that it will need at least the same power in the air and on the blue water. It is more astonishing to see the speed of the improvements in design and capability. The US has produced a mess with LCS and Zumwalt class. The same for the air force with the F22 (only 187 pcs.) and the F-35 that is a flying duck. Look 15 years ago at China and compare it with today - than you have a different expectation what might be in 2035.
F35 is way more capable than what the internet gives it credit for. International sales are a testament to this.
@@Endoplexer ... International Sales are forced by Gun on
their Forehead and made by the WEAK and DIMWITTED Decision Makers / Leaders.
Cool accent！
Awesome china well done and keeping up and continuing on and keep doing what China is doing to protect China and the Asia Pacific ocean now and the future
China 🇨🇳 PLA navy Surpass the U.S navy by quantities and firepower and the U.S navy surpasses China 🇨🇳 by tonnages with 11 U.S aircraft carriers today.
⭐
It al depends in their economy….. if it continues downward then all this can change.
Nope, its actually pretty much impossible now, you would need the power of the great depression and 2008 to activate damage China’s economy
the plan will have the 098 submarine
15:58 16:02 16:04 16:05
Excellent naval development and good deterrence against colonisers and hostile forces from faraway colonised lands. Well done China 👍❤️🇨🇳
Full spectrum domination of d SCS & western Pacific.
Quality and quantity.
I think your figure of 90 destroyers overall is a little low..
The funny thing is, the chinese are finding out that there are no experienced naval officers in the chinese navy to train their sailors. By the time they find enough officers to train the sailors, these ships would be out dated. The US/NATO can easily build more ships but there’s are reasons why they don’t. But remember, the Japanese Navy was built and trained by the British and German. Didn’t not end well for them.
Lol, that is just bs, China have operated a Navy for 75 years so why wouldn’t they have officers to train their sailors?
Naval size is measured by tonnage, the 🇺🇸 is still top due to it's aircraft carriers. Numerically, China already has the biggest navy in the world!
Now I'm curious about Korea and Japan's navies. Surely they must be seeing this and are planning on expanding their own numbers in response, but by how much and with what kinds of ships?
Japan's economy has been stagnant for decades with their gdp per capita (PPP) now less than Italy. What exactly do you think they can do against China which has over 11 times Japan's population?
As for South Korea they're a relatively small country of only 50 million population with their economy being less than on par with Japan. They're also already a highly militarized country to counter North Korea so there's not much more resources they can devote to the military.
None of developed nations have production capabilities matching China together!
Also the closest is S Korea.
There's also lack of expertise to massively build fleets of such size, tech etc
China have all the techniques, technologies especially in electronics, radar
Simply put no match
We will see what's coming... US wanted China down for a long long time ever since Korean War, but West had to content with USSR.
Now when USSR gone, China have gotten to stage too powerful to directly fight but soon Superpower will still make the choice to direct head on naval battles by dragging the rest of developed world in...
(world recession)
~2024 war against a lone China, extreme naval battles
If West supremacy do not make this last move, China will be beyond all nations capabilities.
Even if Developed West US & UK make this move... They will still lose in the end.
1. Direct Ground war is suicide.
2. Naval battles is possible but Not winning at end. Because China will recover quicker, Develop led world just have no capability to output at such pace with such technologies...
This is actually also limited by real economic powers, US have difficulties in keeping her current ships, US is unable to replace the old ships. Thus many old ships are kept running well beyond their years.
US also don't have the ability to build in any quantity of modern large ships (because every project is overblown budget & astronomical in price)
Whereas China make the same (level tech, same everything) with 1/3 to even 1/5 of cost while at break neck speed, & often in budget
Thus the end is coming for the current old Supremacy
But current supremacy will create wars everywhere to supposedly make a reset.
They’re not worried bout China…
@@tomjohnston3393 Japan is ranked 4 and Italy 12 for PPP
At the rate things are going? The bottom of the sea
Philippines must invest in offshore anti ship missile and torpedoes.. Because the war start in the Sea and not in the land.
I believe the buildup is ultimately to gain the means to conquer Taiwan, and in the process also fully enforce their territorial claims upon the South China Sea. To do that they need sufficient capacity to for all intents sink the whole of the West's naval assets in Asia. They likely won't need to 'actually' sink everything, as just having the capacity will allow them to dictate their will in the region. The US' will without question lack the ability to resist this with it's current and planned capacity, unless it decides to deploy the whole of its navy solely to the Pacific 'and' go to a dual crew system for most of its assets. I don't see that happening.
One thing everyone seems to forget is the massive cost of upkeep for all these ships, the amount of sailors needed to man/money needed to pay them and China has a limited amount of ports to base them. Bunching them up would make them easy targets by any rival especially the U.S. with long range cruise missiles. Sustainability is the word of the day.
This take is laughably naive and ignorant.
i wouldn't worry about the ports and bases, as they can be easily acquired with the development of B&R initiative, mostly in third world countries. simply because as china trades more, interact more deeply with these countries, they themselves would require security or military protection for their share in the trade. hence co-op with china with couple of ports or bases is but necessity.
I don't think China will get expand it ports and military facilities till 2035. They'll start acquiring naval bases after 2035 and the process will be completed which is the milestone to build a "world class military" by 2049
It still cost by far less then the US Navy cost, even if it’s a larger navy…and if US can manage why would not China with less budget by capita and way larger population?
And, China do have ports for all its ships and future ships…
And China bunching them up just as much as other navy does it.
And easy targets? Not even close, and maybe your nation have all ships in ports when war is imminent, but I bet China does not, when there are heighten tensions they are on the sea.
@@MrCastodian Costing far less means you get what you pay for. Russian naval enthusiasts claim cheaper cost per ship and cheaper maintenance but look what happened to the Moskva. Maintaining a modern fleet is expensive.
IMAGINE !!
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Ah
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin' life in peace
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
take yourself back 10 years, and think about your projection of the chinese navy and compare that to today's size - how "under" was your estimate? by 2035 the chinese navy could easily reach 8-10 carries (in service and launched), as long as chinese economy and strategic goal do not take a different direction than in the last 10 years
It's a fair comment - using historical trends to estimate PLAN's growth over the past decade would have produced significant underestimates at every point in time. On the other hand, the fact that actual growth of the PLAN exceeded every "reasonable" estimates does suggest there are variables everyone has missed, but nobody in particular can convincingly demonstrate beforehand.
@@EurasiaNaval indeed. thanks for your content, they are very cool.
事实是这样的，但到2035年不可能有8-10艘航母，应该在6艘左右，我是说已经服役
@@user-sj6ym2xj1b 很可能 除非核航母在接下来三四年定型 那就可以同时生产好几艘
By 2035 what about unmanned submarines?
Good question.
There is at least video upon the subject.
China must make a biggest silent nuclear Submarine.
nice video would be nice to go back to this in 2035 to see how accurate these predictions were.. I agree with the general trends here. I won't comment about the surface ships since I haven't been paying attention to them as much, but the nuclear sub numbers see rather optimistic to me unless Russia gave them some of theirs? I imagine they would still be producing more advanced AIP diesel subs for export market in 2035. nuclear subs are expensive to build and operate. if China wanted a sub fleet for a green water environment. (I can't imagine them sailing all over the world in 2035 to visit every ocean) I'd build more advanced, but cheap diesels. a navy of this size on nuclear propulsion would require a naval budget double what it is today that they have. Also their economy isn't what it was pre COVID. anyways, thanks for the detailed analysis. Too bad China doesnt spend more on space exploration rather than military dominance.
Bravo China
Yeah if China can maintain the money flow. Right now there's no way. Their epu is falling like a rock and you have to have money to build the Navy and maintaining. A navy is maybe the most expensive military force in the world
Chinese GDP growth this year is still twice the size of US growth.
Don’t forget China is only using 1.6% of its GDP on the military while the U.S. is 3.4% of its GDP