Re Tonnage comparison of modern RCN + Imperial Chinese/Qing Navy

The following article was compiled solely based on open information and is for personal trolling and research purposes only. 

Standard displacement (tonnage) in metric tons is used when available for surface vessels while submarines are considered using fully submerged displacement. Ship prefixes are omitted unless it would cause ambiguity. Ships have provisions for or fitted with any armament or maritime aircraft are considered. Only commissioned warships in the respective navies are considered. 

RCN

Ships active on July 27, 2024 are considered. 

 Capital City Halifax-Class frigates 

    4795 t × 12 = 57540 t

Harry DeWolf-class AOPVs 

    6615 t × 4 = 26460 t

Kingston-class MCDVs 

    970 t × 12 = 11640 t

Victoria-class submarines 9857 t

    Victoria/Windsor/Corner Brook 2439 t × 3 = 7317 t; 

    Chicoutimi 2540 t;

Total: 105497 t

I[C/Q]N

Ships active immediately before the First Sino-Japan War in 1894 are considered. 

• Northern Seas Fleet 39114 t

Ironclads

定遠/鎮遠 7144 t × 2 = 14288 t

Cruisers 17860 t

經遠/來遠 2947 t × 2 = 5894 t

致遠/靖遠/濟遠 2347 t × 3 = 7041 t

平遠 2185 t

超勇/揚威 1370 t × 2 = 2740 t

Smaller vessels 6966 t

(cruiser-turned training vessel) 威遠  1268 t

(gunboats) 鎮東/南/西/北/中/邊  440 t × 6 = 2640 t

鎮海 582 t

泰安 1258 t

操江 640 t

湄云 578 t

• Other Fleets 19740 t

廣甲 1317 t

廣乙/丙/福靖 1016 t × 3 = 3048 t

開濟/鏡清/寰泰 2144 t × 3 = 6432 t

南琛/南瑞 1935 t × 2 = 3870 t

保民 1501 t

伏波 1278 t

登瀛州 1278 t

威靖 1016 t

• Total: 58854 t

Conclusion: No, what I said was wrong. 口胡了。

However, the post-Protecteur, post-Iroquois, pre-AOPS RCN (2018-2020) is in the same order of magnitude as the ICN in terms of total displacement of ships.