AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Carriers, China and the USA
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Imagine being a Chinese person and hearing this. What would your response be besides none of your business?


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-china-a...d=14275241
"We'll buy a few of yours too in the future."
(08-13-2011, 12:09 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine being a Chinese person and hearing this. What would your response be besides none of your business?


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-china-a...d=14275241

Yeah, I'd say that too.

VSTOL aircraft carriers are much easier and less costly to build. They don't require the logistical and training expertise that the US super-carriers do. And personally I don't expect PRC to go that route. Creating a program that can work well, and proficiently takes decades of training.

My only concern would be the Taiwan angle. As long as they don't try and invade Taiwan, I would not be all that concerned. VSTOL carriers are not that big of a threat IMO. They can't handle the traffic, or even carry all that many aircraft to form an offensive strike force.



I'd say, "Since you have 10, who the hell do you think you are inquiring into our 1"? The arrogance of the Americans surely is high.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...-shipping/

I guess they realize the fact we've allowed our Navy to shrink is becoming apparent. Though the Army and Air Force may have it's numbers and funding reduced, so far they've kept the Navy funding at the same level and may likely increase it.
Why do I suspect this is the military's continued attempt to be able to fight two de facto, but not two de jure wars at the same time? Forget the fact that a war is supposed to be 'official'(as in de jure), whereas a president goes to congress and obtains a formal declaration of war.

From my own personal experience in the military, and growing up in the army as a dependent, I can well remember all the constant drumming of the need to combat the hordes of Soviet tanks, as they sweep into (pick your own location). However, once I started really boning up on Soviet armour, I easily discovered that Soviet/Russian tanks are great for beating up on little countries, but not capable of getting enough of them to the SP, let alone fight a prolonged engagement. In other words, Soviet/Russian armoured vehicles are pieces of unadulterated crap.

I suspect Chinese equivalent will also be crap, since almost all of it is based on Russian design. They make great training aids for live fire exercises. This would include ROKs, Australians, Japanese, and us.
Their weapons capabilities notwithstanding - the Soviets were still a huge power. China aspires to the same sort of power and control of a sphere of influence.

I think that since our adventures in the Middle East, we've shown our vulnerability.

What's very entertaining, is all the trade that still happens despite any of the rumblings or threats.

I would also like to chuckle at the politically correct, affirmitive action military we have at present. Little private Susie Q, former hood rat Deshawn, and all the tons of substand misfits in the service are going to be in for a rude awakening when a highly motivated and tougher Chinese opponent comes to spread their version of freedom.

Let us pray the showdown never happens for the time being.
It would come quietly and would be over before any of us had even known it had begun. They'll blind us through control of our satellites, seize control of our bandwidth, then probably drop a few dozen EMPs on us minutes before they locate our carrier fleets and drop a few warheads on each location. If we were able to counterstrike, we would do our best to eliminate over a billion people in a few hours. I imagine China is as concerned about invading the US as we are of invading China. I don't think they're eager for a fight, they have a nice little thing going and if they keep the political chaff to a minimum, everyone can walk away from the table rich and happy.

Pushing us to the edge by invading Taiwan doesn't make sense in the long run. If we take the bait we will both be sucked up into various proxy wars for a decade. If we come to full on total unrestricted warfare, see above. Myself, I think we will blink and turn our heads and let the poor little Taiwainese suffer the yolk of Fascist China. We would demand some concession on their part, probably release some Tibetans from prison and a lower interest rate on our mortgage would set us right.

I don't worry about the China. What I worry about is are they doing it better than we are?
Something no one here has discussed previously is the shipbuilding problem we have. Anyone interested should do some research. We can fund it all we want, we've lost a lot of the ability to build and maintain a Navy like we need IF we want to remain Rome.

As someone in the same generation as John L, I can attest to the drumbeat of "if we don't increase spending the Russians will overthrow our government" pr. It was part of life and I bought it 100%.

I guess we need a Chinese bogeyman since the Islamic bogeyman really hasn't shown the ability to maintain our "scare factor".
The division in the Navy, I always thought, was between the smaller coastal troop-ferrying ships vs the big expensive destroyer types. The way it was explained to me, and better minds than I would know more, the Navy and military personnel want the coastal ships while the Admirals and the politicians want the big bulky ships. Projects for one side will start then cash will be shut off and funneled to the other side for a few years. Nothing seems to be getting done for either side but the inaction is putting us at risk.

China should be able to wipe out one of our carrier groups within a few years, if they can't do it already. But change doesn't come easy and in the military, it might not come at all. Naval officers rejected the idea of convoy shipping in WWI for months before Britain lost more naval power than they had being built.
Also, the Chinaman does make a great boogeyman. Fascist China seems to be one of those empires that will outlast us all through sheer ruthlessness and cunning political instincts. The thing of it is though, it's made up of real people like the USA is and if their lifestyle is increasing, they wouldn't want to risk it all over some stupid showdown with the US. I'm not saying we have the authority to run roughshod over China, but we don't need to cower in a dark corner fearing for the inevitable invasion by a billion slant-eyed fellas. While human history has shown my logic to be absolute shit, I do think that things have changed with a powerful State now having the power to destroy all life on Earth.
(01-12-2012, 03:27 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Why do I suspect this is the military's continued attempt to be able to fight two de facto, but not two de jure wars at the same time? Forget the fact that a war is supposed to be 'official'(as in de jure), whereas a president goes to congress and obtains a formal declaration of war.

From my own personal experience in the military, and growing up in the army as a dependent, I can well remember all the constant drumming of the need to combat the hordes of Soviet tanks, as they sweep into (pick your own location). However, once I started really boning up on Soviet armour, I easily discovered that Soviet/Russian tanks are great for beating up on little countries, but not capable of getting enough of them to the SP, let alone fight a prolonged engagement. In other words, Soviet/Russian armoured vehicles are pieces of unadulterated crap.

I suspect Chinese equivalent will also be crap, since almost all of it is based on Russian design. They make great training aids for live fire exercises. This would include ROKs, Australians, Japanese, and us.

Most of the Soviet crap had lots of unserviceable equipment thanks to their poor logistic capabilities. The Chinese will have the same problem.
Random comments.

Which is the greater bogeyman, China or Iran?

I have read that the Chinese carrier is a simplistic prototype of some form, and that it is very far from being operational. In addition many support ships are needed for a carrier based task force.

The US could afford the money spent on the cold war, the USSR could not and so it finally went under. The cold war may have lasted significantly longer without the US proving that the USSR could not compete. It think the money spent (by Regan) was worth it.

There is no sense in being unprepared, just as there is no sense in being vastly over prepared in the matter of national defense. Our current defense spending is only 5% of gdp and will be less when the ME wars wind down.

The US should require more participation in defense from its allies so as to avoid having to protect them at its own cost. That has gone on long enough.

I don't think that's a solid analysis. The Russians were tied down by a bureacratic hell, there is no logic to assuming China in 2012 AD would think that way.

They have tons of super well educated folks, they understand profit motive, you can look at the nation along the coast and see the architectural talent. I see no logic to assuming our nation, which is 1/4 their size can outdo them indefinitely.
We don't have to out do the Chinese in "volume". We have to keep a technological lead and enlist allies, which may not be so hard if the Chinese look threatening. The problem will be keeping our technological secrets, since Democrats and big business seem intent on giving them away.

The Chinese have not started a "cold war" yet. Their population is restive, often. Their leaders don't have the control that Staling and his followers had.

Closing off the SE Asia sea lanes to China with our navy (and some help) is a strong deterrent. The Chinese are not even close to Japan's recklessness in 1940.
I don't understand why architectural talent relates to military power.

Many Chinese engineers are ill trained. Many Chinese live in poverty.

Read Gorbachev to find out why the USSR gave up the cold war. He should know.
JT,

My idea is we cannot keep the technical edge indeifinitely. Their schools teach more, they are more serious people whose culture reveres education and they are 4X our size, that many more educated minds.

We're going to lose and lose big if we think we can govern Asia or prevent Chinese from doing so IF that's their ambition. My guess is they have little ambition beyond providing energy resources for China, that culture has always been inward bound and even during their Marxist days they did not export like Moscow did.

IMO, this whole anti China thing is brainless propaganda. They're projecting China to act like we do and that's unlikely. Han Chinese are the center of the universe to them, they don't want to control the barbarians outside, they want to keep us outside.
Palladin, I think you overestimate China's schools. The only schools that count for research are graduate schools, not K-12. My scientist son tells me that the Chinese are not yet free thinking scientists, but rather defer to authority, which is no way to do cutting edge research. It is so easy for the Chicoms to steal (or buy) our technology that there is little incentive for them to discover new technology.

It would be folly for the US to "govern" Asia. China is not now able to "govern" Asia without conquest.

I think you are right about China's cultural history of looking inward, and that this affects even the Chinese comintern. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that they would like a navy to keep their lines of supply open, or perhaps take Taiwan. They have a long way to go before they have such a navy. After all, their big boats are just as vulnerable to surface to sea missiles as ours are.

So, I agree that the "China military threat" is overblown. That does not mean that we should give up strong efforts to keep a technological lead and significantly reduce our naval power.
I also agree 'JT'. A society which actively discourages originality, and independent thinking, is one that will forever be behind the 8-ball, just as the Soviets were.

PRC is caught between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, if they continue as before, they will stumble along and fall prey to the resulting Collectivist mentality. On the other hand, if they become more open, they are going to be pressured harder to liberalize(and I use that word in its correct sense). And the more they liberalize, the looser the grip on the country, which will continue to fragment.

China is just too Huge, in size, and population, to remain as one and still be more competitive. I see no way for them to continue on as one country, over the next three or four decades.
I want to be there on the day when China has to confront Al Qaeda. I always felt that our strategy in Asia should have been to push that Taliban and AQ types into Chinese territories. I think China has a dog's dinner brewing within it's interior over the treatment of recently acquired peoples. Once it messes with a significant Muslim population, they will draw elements of AQ into it's sphere. It could be a bloody rout on the part of the Chinese and stop AQ from operating in Asian or it could fire them up and funnel hundreds of thousands of Jihadis into the maw of Chinese aggression.
JT,

It wouldn't surprise me if China wanted to control/take Taiwan. It wouldn't surprise me China was a bully in regards to regional natural asset acquisitions.

Other than that, I'd be stunned if the Chinese people tried to act like we have since 1946. Believing this, I have 0 fear of China causing my kids a loss of freedom someday. I wouldn't risk war trying to prevent either of the 2 propositions above.

I do not for 1 second believe China has any ambitions to harm the American people( real enemy), just our ability and/or desire to manage Asian affairs(contrived enemy).

That nuance right there is where I fell off the wagon.

Step back and observe what we have here. We have China, ~1.2 billion hard working folks emerging into modernity big time with the natural result they are the big boy in their area and will manage that region's affairs whether we like it or not.

Yet, China (like Germany in 1942 vis a vis England) cannot even invade Taiwan successfully, yet here we are, otherwise intelligent folks discussing China as if we think they may land in LA in the next couple of years.

They have no interest in interdicting free trade, they stand to LOSE more than us in that scenario. So, the propaganda of our Navy that China "might interdict the waterways" is just low quality scare tactic.

Even taking my view, I still want us to have an overpowering Navy and a technical edge. I feel like that Navy guarantees us safety over here, if they can't get over here, we have nothing to fear.
Pages: 1 2