Editor’s note: Of course the US is easily capable of developing an anti-ship missile which would be long-range, sea-skimming and supersonic — but such a weapon would not fit on its Arleigh Burke destroyers (and Ticonderoga cruisers) which are limited by the diminutive size of its universal “vertical launch system” cells from which it fires all its missiles regardless of the type. This limits the ships to the ancient Harpoon anti-ship missile which is subsonic and has a range of only 130 kilometers. (The SM-6 missile mentioned in the article below is primarily an anti-aircraft weapon and as such carries a very light, 64 kilogram warhead which isn’t a credible threat to ships.) In essence, relying so much on its aircraft carriers the US Navy has so far forsaken the biggest revolution of naval warfare post WWII — the ability to extend the weapons range of the smaller “surface combatants” to and beyond that of floating airstrips.

In the maritime battlespace, Chinese warships have an advantage over US Navy surface ships that could prove “decisive” in a surface-to-surface naval conflict.

While the US has China outgunned, having greater capacity than the Chinese, China’s naval forces have greater range.

Were China to initiate hostilities from a safe distance, its clear range advantage could render the US Navy’s capacity advantage irrelevant.

Chinese warships can shoot farther than the US Navy, an ability that could prove “decisive” in a naval conflict, experts argue.

China is arming its surface warships with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles with far greater range than the Cold War-era subsonic missiles the US Navy has in its arsenal.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s advanced Type 052 and Type 055 destroyers carry YJ-18 cruise missiles with an operational range that extends out to 540 kilometers.

US Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are armed with shorter-range missiles, such as the Harpoon anti-ship missiles [with a range of just 130km] and SM-6s [which are primarily an anti-aircraft weapon with a mere 64kg warhead] with surface-to-surface capabilities that have ranges up to only about 240 kilometers.

“That is a very big gap,” Robert Haddick, a former Marine Corps officer and visiting senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Reuters this week. “China’s anti-ship missile capability exceeds those of the United States in terms of range, speed, and sensor performance.”

Other experts suggest that US and Chinese missiles are equally survivable and lethal, but China definitely appears to have the advantage when it comes to range.

Where the US excels, though, is capacity.

The PLAN’s advanced Type 052 and Type 055 destroyers have 64 and 112 vertical launch system (VLS) cells respectively. The US Navy’s destroyers and cruisers, on the other hand, respectively have 96 and 122 VLS cells. [No wonder since they’re that small] Furthermore, China does not currently have many heavy-hitters in its surface force.

“The PLAN has like a 10th of the VLS cells of the US Navy, even though it has approximately the same number of surface combatants,” Bryan Clark, a former Navy officer and a naval affairs expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told Business Insider.

“So, Chinese warships have fewer VLS cells than the US, but arguably, the PLAN can devote more of those VLS cells to offensive weapons” than US Navy warships can, he said, suggesting that the offensive capacity gap may actually be much more narrow. At the same time, it could mean that US defenses are tougher to penetrate.

In a ship-to-ship fight, it all comes down to range, capacity, and capability, and it looks like China has an advantage in at least one, if not two, of these areas. Tactics, though, can also affect the outcome.

“On any given day in the South China Sea, the US and China could find themselves in a situation where each side has about the same number of anti-ship cruise missiles, but one side has a much longer range than the other,” Clark told BI.”The US is going to be at a disadvantage.”

In a hypothetical naval conflict scenario with the same types and numbers of ships on each side, the US will undoubtedly have greater capacity, but if the Chinese side is able to launch at longer ranges, then the missiles on the US side wind up being irrelevant if China fires first from outside the range of the US warships.

“What could US ships be launching in response?” Clark asked. “At the ranges we are talking about, nothing.” “Right now, we do not have anything that reaches that far, and therefore, the range disadvantage ends up being dominant. You’ll never get a shot. You’ll never get a chance to exploit your capacity advantage.” “The range disadvantage ends up being decisive,” he added. “Even having the larger capacity is not enough to make up for it if the Chinese initiate the hostilities.” In a broader great power conflict, US combined arms capabilities give the US military an edge, but the stand-off problem continues to be a serious issue. This is why the US Navy is modifying the Tomahawk cruise missile to have a maritime strike capability. It’s about getting that range back.