US Navy in a losing race to close China fleet gap

Asia Times ^ | JANUARY 15, 2024 | By GABRIEL HONRADA

[Red Badger]

US Navy to upgrade four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with updated kit but China’s superior fleet size would likely win any sea war

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The US Navy is significantly upgrading four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with advanced radars and electronic warfare systems in an apparent stopgap bid to counterbalance China’s growing naval might.

This month, The Warzone reported that the US Navy has named the USS Pinckney, USS James E Williams, USS Chung Hoon and USS Halsey for the upgrades.

The upgrades will include the new AN/ALQ-32(V)7 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block III electronic warfare suite, thermal management systems, the new AN/SPY-6(V)4 radar and an improved version of the Aegis Combat System.

The SEWIP Block III suite features active electronically scanned array technology, allowing powerful bursts of radio-frequency energy to launch electronic attacks on multiple targets. The US Navy is also acquiring two other radars in the SPY-6 family for integration on other ships.

The Warzone says that the US Navy is upgrading an initial four Arleigh Burke destroyers to the so-called Mod 2.0 configuration in two phases, with the first phase receiving all components except for the new radar.

Other ships in the class will be upgraded to the Mod 2.0 configuration after the first four Arleigh Burke destroyers. The US Navy is also acquiring new Flight III Arleigh Burkes, which will become the US Navy’s primary air defense command and control platform afloat.

At the same time, the US Navy is planning to develop a larger class of destroyers, known as DDG(X) with a displacement of around 13,500 tons, in fiscal year 2032 without disrupting Arleigh Burke production.

The DDG-51 Mod 2.0, or DDG 2.0 standard, may be a stopgap solution until newer Arleigh Burke Flight III and DDG(X) hulls come into service, providing high-end surface warfare capabilities to replace the Ticonderoga class.

[ansel12]

Since you are a boomer, you should know better.

[Mariner]

We don’t need to.

Not even close.

[hinckley buzzard]

You think so. On paper, maybe.

[minnesota_bound]

Take a look at a map. China is surrounded by enemies.
If the Chinese send their navy out those countries will sink the Chinese ships using missiles from shore from all sides.

[Svartalfiar]

https://gensteel.com/building-faqs/building-comparisons/chinese-steel-quality-vs-american-steel-quality/

[Svartalfiar]

It isn’t so much technology as the facilities to make the guns that big. Forges could be built to do it but for only 36 cannon barrels, it would be cost-prohibitive.

A better (probably cheaper) solution is to figure out the issues on the Electromagnetic Railgun they were developing and to install more powerful lasers on ships.

Old US battleships had a range of about 30 miles at max. The German Paris gun was maybe 70-80 miles at best.

Basic AMRAAM missiles have a range of 25-30 miles, and are much more accurate. But for ship launched, the basic SM-2 has a range of ~100 miles. Tomahawks are around 1500 miles, but expensive. Harpoons, depending on variant, have a range of ~80 miles or 190 miles.

There's no point in any near-peer warfare using 'big' guns when missile range is 3-6 times further. Not to mention a carrier has a range of stupid far, and are all probably way faster and definitely have more endurance than a battleship could get up to/has without an entire turbines to reactor replacement. Also, who knows how good hull integrity is. Or wiring. Or how much of the electronics need to be completely replaced (all of it).

[Svartalfiar]

I think China builds something like 20 ships for every 1 ship we build. So thank you Labor Unions, you’ve pretty much ended the US as a superpower.

China produces tons of little ships with crappy materials. And it takes some time and effort to train enough people to man all those ships. Much less effectively man them. Not to mention combat activities and damage control.

But tonnage is what really matters, not so much the quantity. China has ~2.4MM tons of ships. These US has ~4.6MM, and that matters. Bigger ships can hold more, go further, and need less resupply, and are harder to kill.

[Colorado Doug]

and now we are in 2023, where it takes 3 years to build a single forging press for artillery ammunition. And only one small company in the whole country able to do it.

That is sobering!