蓝林网 > 战争军事 > 正文


文章原始标题:People's Liberation Army Navy vs Royal Navy


The PLARF could probably handle the British navy on its own.


Armed Police: PLA bros stand down, we can handle this


During the Falkland War, Argentinian Jets equipped with anti-ship missiles did a lot of damage to the British navy.


China shouldn't compare herself to that tiny fog ridden Island, a comparison with the US navy would be more appropriate.


You have to remember that China isn't interested in massive military buildups, this is just a byproduct of China's massive economy.


I sure do hope they are interested in maintaining the industry to pump these ships out, if needed. Wars are won by people that can sustain the losses.


It doesn't matter whether China is interested in a massive military build-up. The US is interested, so China is forced to be interested. Do They want another 1840 moment where China "isn't interested" in having a massive navy and gets shown what those who are interested in having a massive navy will do to it? Absolutely not.
That's why China today has the largest navy by number of vessels and also has the fastest-growing navy in the world.
There is no room for being a sheep when there are wolves on the prowl.


By mid-century, that ratio is what the PLAN vs the USN would look like.


if britain thinks they can steamroll the plan and force them to buy opium and whatnot like last time, they've got another thing coming. they're welcome to try, though.


It will be amusing to watch.


Great target practice for the DFs


The Royal Navy now is basically designed to be an extra USN carrier strike group. They need two carriers because maintenance requirements means one is going to be in port at any given time, so they swap places.


This image is obviously fake. The Royal Navy isn't pictured at the bottom of the sea.


Come on bro, let's just send in the royal navy like last time bro, trust me bro it'll work bro, another century of humiliation bro


Ooh dam i thought that was the Aussie navy but its the UK navy.


how the tables have turned


Shane Jones
The last time that Britain could've fought a war on close to equal terms against China was in the mid 1960s before it scrapped it's heavy carrier force and before China modernized.
The whole reason why the British handed over Hong Kong to China was it had no way of defending it if the Chinese had simply moved in and taken it… which they most likely would've have done had the British tried to hang onto it after 1997. There was no way that the British could've retake it like it was able to do when Argentina invaded the Falklands. That was was a close run thing and modern China is a regional Superpower.
At the present moment, the United States is about the only country on earth that can confront China in a conflict and China have a higher chance of winning than not winning… that's a far cry from just 24 years ago when the U.S confronted China over Taiwan in May of 1996.

英国把香港交还给中国的全部原因是,如果中国人仅仅简单地进入并夺回了香港,那么英国就没有办法保住它... 如果英国人在1997年之后试图保住它,那么他们很可能早就这样做了。英国不可能像阿根廷入侵福克兰群岛时那样夺回它。这是势均力敌的,而且现代中国是一个地区超级大国。
目前,美国是世界上唯一一个能够在冲突中与中国对抗的国家,但中国胜利的机会比失败的机会更大... 这与24年前的1996年5月美国在台湾问题上与中国的对抗相比,已经大不相同了。

Within about 15 to 20 years, it will be impossible for even the U.S to take China on in a military confrontation without a large coalition of allies…
Not only in the region but around the world.
By the the mid part of this century China will be the most powerful single nation on earth …industrially , Financially and militarily. The U.S will be more powerful but only as the leader of a coalition of the other major powers… excluding Russia.
By the end of this century, China will be what the U.S and Soviet Union were together in World War 2. A country with a huge population, economy and industrial base that … in theory …will account for half of the world's industrial output.
I'm not at all saying China will take over the world or that it can't be beaten, I'm just saying that in order to prevent China from becoming a threat to world peace, it will take the entire Free World and not just one nation in it banding together. No single nation will be able to confront China alone in the coming decades.

到本世纪中叶,中国将成为世界上最强大的单一国家... 无论是工业、金融还是军事。虽然美国也将更加强大,但只是作为其他主要大国联盟的领导者... 不包括俄罗斯。
到本世纪末,中国将成为第二次世界大战中美国和苏联的合体。一个拥有庞大人口、经济和工业基础的国家...在理论上... 将占据世界工业产出的一半。

Henry Charles
Lets take in some points and factors :-ROYAL NAVY is 5th strongest in the world and China has 3rd strongest . RN right now has 34000 crew members in a NAVY of at least 72000 Crew members to operate all vessels at the same time . Lets have 72000 crew fleet to make the competition even . Since China have no serious Allie lets consider UK wont get help from NATO to make the competition even .
As soon as RN has a full navy its becomes 2nd strongest navy. And Royal Air Force is ranked 4th having a fleet of highly capable Eurofighter Typhoon and RAF will be flying F 35 soon . Its pilots are considered one of the best in the world even outwitting USAF in joint training . Its navy is superior having some of the most Advanced Equipment s after USA . China has really maintains a very very poor army incapable of a actual war. Chinese army has Low Morale Rate , under trained troops and high conscr1ipts . Chinese aircraft carrier is new and will take decades to be fully operable . Due to censorship Much is not known but leaked information says it is very poorly developed and poor. Chines however have an advantage over UK in terms of Quantity . Its Air force is ranked 9th and manages many copies of Russian Sukois namely J 10 . Though it can be a numbers game China having Quantity advantage over UK . Chinese army is often considered as paper tiger and UK a all Behemoth having decades of experience


If they want to waste resources to hasten their fall, China should welcome it. I highly doubt that Uncle Sam is bankrolling them.


fake images, words don't float on water. -Australia.


Alexandra Rivers
How would either country invade the other exactly?
They are on opposite sides of the world with no clear path to the other country. Between them is all of central Asia and Africa or two oceans and the Americas. To invade one another, they would either have to go
* through the Arctic and the Bering Strait, around Russia;
* through the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, down the red sea, around India, through the strait of Malacca
* across the Atlantic ocean and through Panama Canal and across the entire Pacific ocean
* around Africa and India and through the strait of Malacca
All of this is an utter logistical nightmare. There’s no way you can maintain supply lines or protect your ships from being ambushed by surface vessels or subs.

* 穿越北极和俄罗斯周围的白令海峡;
* 穿过地中海,苏伊士运河,沿着红海,绕过印度,穿过马六甲海峡
* 穿越大西洋、巴拿马运河和整个太平洋
* 绕过非洲和印度,穿过马六甲海峡

Comparing against the Royal Navy is not just unfair, it's even an insult these days.


Fergus Mason
The UK would win, easily. That’s because any such war would be a Chinese attack against the UK or a British overseas territory. We can get significant forces to the battlespace and keep them supplied; China cannot, so will lose badly.


Tom Hill
You severely overestimate British military power. They may have had a chance 30 years ago but very unlikely today. Britain's navy is a joke. Successive governments have destroyed the Royal Navy. When I used to live in Britain In 2007 Britan only had 18 front line ships. That is just larger than one US carrier fleet. Chinese have 3 aircraft carriers and building more. China has the largest Army on the world and modern Soviet style air defence. Britain has the Rapier system. A system that sucked 40 years ago in the Falklands.
I have no idea how Britain would even get to China and if it resulted in a Naval war Britain would be anilahted. Britain is not the empire it was.
Past governments have continuesly reduced defence spending. Things like “Strategic Defense Reviews” are just code words for defence cuts.
Don't expect that to change anytime soon.


Fergus Mason
China has two aircraft carriers; one is a domestic clone of Soviet-era junk and the other is actual Soviet-era junk. They have little experience in operating them and, in any case, their aircraft are severely limited in both range and payload.
The rest of their armed forces can be discounted, because they have no way to get them anywhere.


Tom Hill
Neither does Britain. Britain has 3 amphibious ships. The third HMS ocean is 23 years old. You may not remember but Britain didn't have any aircraft carriers for over 10 years. And they were small, not capable of combat air patrols due to the small number of aircraft. Any experience through manpower they had then is more than likely gone. The Royal Navy has had to relearn aircraft carrier tactics and then learn new tactics due to the larger size of craft.
Britain's armed forces number no more than about 120,00 regular members. China has probably in excess of 1 million regular soldiers, sailors and airmen. And don't forget most people in the army are not in the combat arms. Most are combat service support. Meaning drivers, mechanics, clerks, storemen, chefs, medics, nurses and other various support arms. The British army only has about 20 to 30 thousand actual combat personal.
I you think that Britain could take on China who realistically will outnumber them at least 10 to one in combat personel then you are highly delusional.
I'm not even going to mention the number of tanks and artillery pieces China possess.


Benoit Blanc
So it would be a draw. No side can reach each other. No battles except maybe naval battles.


Tom Hill
Which China completely outnumbers Britain in.


Ray McCallum
North Korea has a larger navy than the USA… GuGuess north Korea wins.

朝鲜拥有比美国更大的海军... 看来朝鲜赢了。

Tom Hill
They use the type 99a for a main battle tank. And their soldiers uniforms resemble any Western army.
I think you are confusing North Korea for China. China has a very modern army..


Fergus Mason
The Type 99A is roughly equivalent to an early T-90, at best.
China’s fleets have no real carrier capability and poor ASW. Against a couple of Astutes they’re dead.
Unless the UK and China fought in China the UK is going to win easily.


Tom Hill
China also has submarines, and much more than the British. Even if British equipment is better the sheer numbers the Chinese can field would tip the scales.
The type 99 is a recent tank developed in the last 10 years. It is not going to resemble a tank developed 30 years ago. The second richest nation in the world not develop a tank that would be so inferior to Western tanks.
But don't forget the Challenger 2, an evolution of the Challenger 1 and the M1A2 Abrams are tanks primarily developed during the cold war. Nothing has pretty much changed on the Chally 2 since it came into service in the 90s, and there wasn't that much change to the Chally 1, just optics and software.


Nobody, including you, knows the capabilities of the type 99. That's because it has never taken part in the annual Russian tank biathlon and has never seen combat. The type 96 B has in the past and did prove to be a very versatile and competitive MBT at the tank biathlon.
And China is never going to sail halfway around the earth to attack Britain. If you think they are that's just propaganda infecting you. The people's Republic of China has only ever officially seen combat in border conflicts with Vietnam and India. Yes they were in Korea but officially the PRC did not take part in this conflict as the soldiers were “volunteers”. Same as Vietnam where they assisted the North Vietnamese in weapons and logistics.


So the only possible scenario that is plausible is the British attacking China. Which would be suicide. Since only one of these nations has actually invaded other nations in the last 20 years I would say the more aggressive nation is Britain. And since China's, just like Russia's, defence policy is defence it's very unlikely that a war away from China would take place without a complete re thinking of Chinese policy. Which isn't going to happen.
And more to the point Aircraft Carriers are becoming redundent. The Chinese posses the DF21E anti ship missiles that flies too fast for any anti air defence to shoot down. It is satellite guided so most ECMs are useless. And since China leads the world In anti satellite rocketry I don't think the missile is going to be defeated any time soon. The Americans even commented a few years back that they have no countermeasures for this weapon. That means that carriers would have to be so far out of range that their air wings would be useless. Britain may have 1 large carrier and another one in the pipeline but they are too late to the game for supercarriers. Even in 2023 when the Prince of Wales is combat ready, Britain will not have the necessary ships to man two full carrier groups carry on with its regular duties around the world, ie British overseas territories. One will always be in Port being refitted while the other one is at sea. That is the whole reason for having 2. And don't forget China is very close to Russia, who are the leaders in hypersonic missiles. Russia has the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles in service, another weapon that NATO had no countermeasures to repel. And Russia is the world leader in ECM technology and radar detection.


China is on course to be a massive military power in the future. China is increasing its defence budget every year while Britain is constantly cutting theirs.
Britain has some good equipment, I know I served in the British Army for 12 years, but we do not have enough of that equipment or the man power to realistically do anything with it.
You remind me of some officers in the British Army. The aristocratic toffs. They still had this romantic notion that Britain was a force to be reckoned with. They still had this sense of empire in their heads like Britain had the manpower it did in the second world war. Britain has had massive defence cuts in the last 30 years. The regular British army is less than half the size it was back then. Many regiments, batallions and whole corps have been disbanded or emalgamated. Right now the regular British army stands at around 80,000 men. 10 years ago when I left it was about 102,000. And as I said previously most of these soldiers are not combat personel. With quite possibly no tanks in the future Britian isn't really looking like a force to be reckoned with. They might do well against poorer smaller less developed nations but have no chance standing alone against highly developed militaries like Russia and China.
Britain cant really project force anywhere in the world without help of another nation. Since the EU relationship has gone up shit Creek that only leaves the United States and NATO which is basically the United States.


Fergus Mason
Check the facts. China’s carriers are an obsolete Soviet design. Their aircraft can only carry short-range AAMs, so they’d be sitting ducks against QE’s F-35s.


Johnny Johnson
Don't worry about china, now with your rethoric you would think, uk stand any chance against Russia. Keep dreaming. The uk has no Indian and nepali as cannon fodder today.


Logan Murray
The RN remains the second most powerful naval force on the planet. Sure the RN has shrunk in size and thus capability, it certainly remains a force to be reckoned with and it is one foreign navies take seriously.


Manuel Ndy
Britain is still as strong or probably stronger than it was 30 years ago, the change here is that China today is massively stronger than it was 30 years ago.


wait where's all the submarines? looks mostly surface ships in the images. that's a very vital part of a modern navy


China's submarines are all hidden in the sea


China might be using the sea to hide their submarines.


Hahahaha lol I remember some Anglo article actually saying those exact same words next issue will be Chinese people use oxygen to live

哈哈哈哈哈 我记得英国的一篇文章说过同样的话《中国可能利用海洋来隐藏他们的潜艇》,下一期会是《中国人用氧气来生存》

The submarines are underwater


74 vs 10 I think


The Chinese have taken the sneaky and dishonest act of using the sea to hide their submarines. The audacity.


Tom Hill
Britain's forces are half the size they were 30 years ago. To put in perspective if Argentina attacked the Falkland islands today Britain could do very little to counteract the invasion. They just don't have the ships or manpower. It just helps that Argentina's forces are no where near the size they were 38 years ago. And they are on friendly terms with Britain now.


Manuel Ndy
Britain today has a lot of force multipliers, for example the 80's British army can't beat the current British army. But China is a real beast today, it's not to be played with.


Steven Green
I was listening to you until this. Argentina wouldn't even get 1 soldier on Falklands nowadays… irrespective of the shrinking of UK armed forces..

在这之前我一直在听你说话。如今,阿根廷甚至不会在福克兰群岛驻扎一名士兵... 尽管英国军队正在缩减...

Tom Hill
I was saying that if they succeed in invading and taking control of the islands Britain doesn't have the capability to take them back. I know there is a much bigger garrison on East Falkand now including mount pleasant airfield that wasn't there in 1982. I personally don't think the Argentinians could take the islands again but Britain wouldn't have much support other than the garrison that is there since it is so far from the closest British base on Ascension Island. And we don't have long range bombers anymore like we did back then. Although cruise missiles fired from submarines could fulfil that need.


John Moore
UK Would win. They are damn good fighters. Also, they would not be fighting alone. Even though manny in the UK hate the US. The US would spill their Blood and Treasure to support them.


Blue Bantam
Although I agree that our allies would provide defence assistance, as we would in turn, I just dislike the comment stating many in the UK hate the US. I think social media trolls and online petty rivalries seem to continually paint this picture. I think it’s not true. ‘Many’ suggests huge numbers but US politics aside, the UK I know does not hate the US. We love plenty about our American cousins.
I just think it helps propagate misinformation that does even more harm.
After all it’s us British that want the cosy feeling that comes with maintaining the ‘special relationship’ despite it being more a one way label.


Robin Maile
You forget that when Britain goes to war she has the Commonwealth behind her, mainly Australia and Canada with our Huge combined resources.


Tatva Joshi
You know who happens to have about the same sized ground force and also isn't very keen on the prospect of a Chinese Victory against a traditionally big powerhouse such as Britain and its collosal geo-political consequences ? The one that can provide supplies as well as manpower for the Operation ? China's immediate neighbour. Still longing for a payback for '62. India could be the game changer in this hypothetical conflict (apart from UK's old pal US of course). Now that would certainly make way for Pakistan to get involved (If they can afford a war, but that's never gotten in their way) bringing us very close to a World War like situation.


Kaushik Rj
Britain doesn't have that many nuclear weapons, unlike China. It has a modern military but compared to China, its army is small. If China really didn’t want a huge war, it would use its nuclear arsenal to take the UK down.


Fergus Mason
China doesn’t have that many nuclear weapons either, and ours can be delivered far more accurately and anywhere in the world. Theirs can’t.


Neil Macdonald
Britain would not start that war so it would be an attack on Britain which would bring NATO into the war. While most of NATO wouldn’t be a lot of help the United States certainly would be.


Bang Nguyen
Why want war? Cant live peace? Those ppls will regret their decision.

为什么要打仗? 不能和平相处? 那些人会后悔他们的决定的。

Anil Abraham
Not counting nuclear option or allied reinforcement, I doubt uk could beat china. It might not be a great idea for china but it's going to be much more fatal for uk.


Richard Wagner
In a conventional (non nuclear) war neither would win. Neither would be able to defeat the other on their home territory. In a nuclear war both would lose.


Pretty sure the DFs are capable of handling the Royal Navy on its own.