China's Carrier Killer [Archive]

Mohoender

08-07-2010, 04:38 AM

I was just thinking about that China thing and here is a theory.

Lets look at US first.
- Ahead of everyone when it comes to aircraft: generation 5 while all contenders have generation 4 and 4.5.
- Slightly superior when it comes to ground forces. I think of the US army to be the best in the world but I'm not sure that its military gear is so superior. M1 Abrams demonstrated their superiority but, so far, only against outdated equipments and tactics. They also showed several weeknesses in Irak. Then, US army changed but the other did that too. Merkavas also proved that tanks can be very vulnerable to footmen (Infantry queen of the field again). The best advantage to US is their wonderful professiency when it comes to combine their forces.
- Absolutly dominant when it come to the sea. The carrier fleet has no match and the US aircraft carriers are the most magnificent war machine you can imagine.

Lets look at China.
- Quickly converting its aircraft fleet to generation 4 and 4.5 with a huge amount of older aircrafts in reserve. It could get generation 5 within ten years. In the meantime, the country acquired a top of the line air defense by colaborating with Russia and France.
- On the ground, they have enough manpower to stop anyone. They did already in the past. Their ground forces are also modernizing really fast.
- At sea (their main weak point) they are a match for any conventional fleet but no match at all for US carrier task forces. And such task force would switch the ground and air balance.

A few years ago, China succesfully shot down a satelite. Such capability seriously threatens the GPS system over the region (and with a weakened electronic US is not that much a threat). Then, for thirty years, China acquired several carriers and certainly studied them. We all expect China to built it's own carrier soon but what if we were all wrong? What if Chinese planners had come to the obvious conclusion that challenging US naval power is a waste of time and ressources? What if they had jumped to the conclusion that the best way to answer the threat of US carriers is to negate that advantage to US?

I have no clue about the chinese missile capability but if it is capable of putting any US carrier out of commission, it seriously changes the face of the world. One thing I'm convinced is that, with the time they had and the carriers the put they hand on, they have enough in their game to successfully conceive such weapon.

As a result, China doesn't become a threat to US but US is no longer a threat to China. In my opinion, this option could be the best choice. I could even suppose the next step to be an increasing collaboration between China and US on the international scene. If US is no longer a threat to China, China no longer has a need to systematicaly oppose US at the diplomatic level.

Raellus

08-07-2010, 12:08 PM

As a result, China doesn't become a threat to US but US is no longer a threat to China.

IMPO, this is a very sound and concise assessment of the strategic military tilt between the world's current superpowers.

China has for decades been making qualitative improvements to its military- a military designed to fight a large-scale conventional war- while the U.S. has been slimming down its military and molding it to fight in smaller scale counterinsurgency campaigns. If this trend continues, China will be prepared to fight the U.S. in a conventional war (Taiwan, Korea?) while the U.S. will not be prepared to fight the Chinese. We're probably still a decade or two away from that day, but it's a somewhat worrisome trend.

I too am flabbergasted by the Western World's dismissal of Chinese military capabilities and potential. The U.S. had a very similar attitude about Japan prior to WWII and it cost us dearly.

RN7

08-07-2010, 01:28 PM

Not at all. It would actually be the wisest move and the less provocative one as the given missile doesn't threaten US naval power in any way. So far it seems to be strictly defensive and I would think it to be a fair answer to US naval power. It simply deny US capability to get the upper hand if US attacks China (very unlikely but who knows).

The "missile doesn't threaten US power in any way", yet "I would think it to be a fair answer to US naval power". Well if its a fair answer to US naval power it must be of some threat, because if it wasn't it would be fairly useless do you not think?

If US thinks it to be provocative, I would suspect the US administration to develop plans to attack China. I don't think it possible.

I'm sure the US administration has many simulated plans to attack China.

What would be provocative, however, would be for China to sell such missile to Iran (future will tell).

It would probably lead to an end to US-Chinese trade and the collapse of the Chinese economy.

Of course, they will develop a version to be carried on ships but when this will be done I'm sure US will have developed the proper countermeasure.

The ship would be of some size to carry ballistic missile, perphaps the Russians gave them blueprints for the Kirov Class battlecruiser. And if the US put ABM systems on its ships I don't think Russia would be to happy.

Of course media will say it to be provocative (that will boost their own market) but if US administration say so, it will become amusing. I love the idea of US taking over the role of former Soviet Union.

I haven't currently read anywhere about the US complaining about this weapon system, which probably means the US military doesn't rate it seriously.

I love these kind of assumptions on the side of Americans or Europeans (civilians). Most of the technology your are talking of is assembled with components made in China. Still, we keep thinking that the Chinese are too stupid to assemble it themselves. Hopefully for us, US administration don't share your idea. Look at their released report on China if you ever have a doubt. About arm race, don't worry, it never ended and simply slew down between something like 1992-2001.

So tell me where did I say the Chinese are too stupid then? Also where did I mention Europeans, and what part of an F-22 is made in China? Also wasn't the same argument about western military components being made in Japan banded about 20 years ago, and how dependent on Japan did western militaries become?

I was just thinking about that China thing and here is a theory.
Lets look at US first.

- Ahead of everyone when it comes to aircraft: generation 5 while all contenders have generation 4 and 4.5.

Well ahead of everyone else at the moment, as the only 5th generation aircraft flying is an F-22 and the only outside of technology demonstraters that is likely to seriously come into service over the next decade is the F-35.

- Slightly superior when it comes to ground forces. I think of the US army to be the best in the world but I'm not sure that its military gear is so superior. M1 Abrams demonstrated their superiority but, so far, only against outdated equipments and tactics. They also showed several weeknesses in Irak. Then, US army changed but the other did that too. Merkavas also proved that tanks can be very vulnerable to footmen (Infantry queen of the field again). The best advantage to US is their wonderful professiency when it comes to combine their forces.

Many NATO and developed militaries have ground forces that use equipment that approaches or is equal to that of the US Army/Marines, and some are better trained. Britain's Challenger 2 tank for example has superior armour protection to the Abrams. The US Army and Marines just have far more very good equipment and well trained soldiers than anyone else, and have an air mobility capability and an air and sea logistical capability that is vastly superior to any other country.

- Absolutly dominant when it come to the sea. The carrier fleet has no match and the US aircraft carriers are the most magnificent war machine you can imagine.

Britain's nuclear hunter killer submarine fleet is highly regarded by the US Navy, and if fully operational would make even the US Navy think twice about where it sent her carriers and ships, but fortunately Britain is a close ally.

Lets look at China.
- Quickly converting its aircraft fleet to generation 4 and 4.5 with a huge amount of older aircrafts in reserve. It could get generation 5 within ten years. In the meantime, the country acquired a top of the line air defense by colaborating with Russia and France.

So what 4.5 generation aircraft does China have or is planning to deploy? The only 4th generation aircraft that I know that China has are the J-10, the J-11 and the FC-1/JF-17. The FC-1/JF-17 was developed with Pakistan is far from a cutting edge combat aircraft. The J-10 was developed with Israeli and Russian assistance, and the J-11 is a development of the Russian Su-27SK. I think the suggestion that 5th generation Chinese combat aircraft coming online over the next decade is wishful thinking. Also I'm aware that China has bought Russian S-300 series long ranged SAM's and has produced them under license, but what imput has France made to Chinese air defences?

- On the ground, they have enough manpower to stop anyone. They did already in the past. Their ground forces are also modernizing really fast.

Well its never been tested as nobody wants to invade China.

- At sea (their main weak point) they are a match for any conventional fleet but no match at all for US carrier task forces. And such task force would switch the ground and air balance.

They'd be sent to the bottom of the sea very quickly.

A few years ago, China succesfully shot down a satelite etc

The whole debate about the missle system in question and the China's anti-satellite capabilities seems to be based on variations of the DF-21 missile. Development of this missile started in the 1960's, and although sytematic upgrades and the incorporation of new technology have made this missile far more capable than originally designed, the technology is not new or some miraculous breakthrough by China. The fact that China has achieved this shows how far China has progressed in the past few decades, but by looking at Chinese aerospace thechnology based on its air defence and aircraft designs it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that they are being assisted by other countries or utilising foreign technology.

Raellus

08-07-2010, 03:01 PM

It would probably lead to an end to US-Chinese trade and the collapse of the Chinese economy.

...and the collapse of the U.S. economy. China is our #1 or #2 trading partner (Mexico being the other, IIRC). We owe them hundreds of billions of dollars and they own a lot of U.S. treasury bonds and that sort of thing. If they were to call in these outstanding debts, the U.S. economy would be ruined. They don't do this precisely because we are their #1 customer and that would be self-destructive from their economic POV. But to suggest that we would refuse to trade with them over missile sales? We simply can't afford that sort of gesture.

Mohoender

08-07-2010, 05:38 PM

The "missile doesn't threaten US power in any way", yet "I would think it to be a fair answer to US naval power". Well if its a fair answer to US naval power it must be of some threat, because if it wasn't it would be fairly useless do you not think?

It is a threat and not a threat. It is a threat as it could negate US capability to efficiently deploy a task force next to China but at the moment the only existing threat is that of US task forces. The goal of China (IMO) is not to threaten US in any way but to avoid being threaten by US. It is not a threat because it doesn't threaten US capability anywhere outside of seas close to China.

I'm sure the US administration has many simulated plans to attack China.

I'm pretty sure they have some but I'm not convinced that US consider China a threat. In fact, I think that both countries will tighten their relations over the coming times.

It would probably lead to an end to US-Chinese trade and the collapse of the Chinese economy.

Someone else already said what I'm thinking. Actually, world economy would collapse.

The ship would be of some size to carry ballistic missile, perphaps the Russians gave them blueprints for the Kirov Class battlecruiser. And if the US put ABM systems on its ships I don't think Russia would be to happy.

Submarines could be enough. Then I don't think it to be planned.

I haven't currently read anywhere about the US complaining about this weapon system, which probably means the US military doesn't rate it seriously.

Or exactly the opposite. The main point is that US and China are not anywhere close to some tensions.

So tell me where did I say the Chinese are too stupid then? Also where did I mention Europeans, and what part of an F-22 is made in China? Also wasn't the same argument about western military components being made in Japan banded about 20 years ago, and how dependent on Japan did western militaries become?

I was not thinking about you. I was simply reffering to the too common idea that China is so much behind. Then, I never said that western military was dependent on anyone. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Well ahead of everyone else at the moment, as the only 5th generation aircraft flying is an F-22 and the only outside of technology demonstraters that is likely to seriously come into service over the next decade is the F-35.

Didn't say anything else. It doesn't mean that no one would be capable of making one. However, the only point of fielding a 5th generation aircraft would be to threaten US, what for?

Many NATO and developed militaries have ground forces that use equipment that approaches or is equal to that of the US Army/Marines, and some are better trained. Britain's Challenger 2 tank for example has superior armour protection to the Abrams. The US Army and Marines just have far more very good equipment and well trained soldiers than anyone else, and have an air mobility capability and an air and sea logistical capability that is vastly superior to any other country.

I think we perfectly agree. Then, if US can no longer support this logistical capability with its carriers, it is of no more use.

Britain's nuclear hunter killer submarine fleet is highly regarded by the US Navy, and if fully operational would make even the US Navy think twice about where it sent her carriers and ships, but fortunately Britain is a close ally.

Did I say anything against the Royal Navy?

So what 4.5 generation aircraft does China have or is planning to deploy? The only 4th generation aircraft that I know that China has are the J-10, the J-11 and the FC-1/JF-17. The FC-1/JF-17 was developed with Pakistan is far from a cutting edge combat aircraft. The J-10 was developed with Israeli and Russian assistance, and the J-11 is a development of the Russian Su-27SK. I think the suggestion that 5th generation Chinese combat aircraft coming online over the next decade is wishful thinking. Also I'm aware that China has bought Russian S-300 series long ranged SAM's and has produced them under license, but what imput has France made to Chinese air defences?

My mistake for the 4.5 generation. I'm not sure it's wishful thinking but I'm neither sure that it can't become true. Russia provided the long range sam while medium/short range were developed from French missiles sold to china, including several Thomson CSF systems.

Well its never been tested as nobody wants to invade China.

Yes it was to great cost by the Japanese

They'd be sent to the bottom of the sea very quickly.

I disagree but that comes from a mistake on my part. I never thought of Chinese naval forces going very far from their coast.

The whole debate about the missle system in question and the China's anti-satellite capabilities seems to be based on variations of the DF-21 missile. Development of this missile started in the 1960's, and although sytematic upgrades and the incorporation of new technology have made this missile far more capable than originally designed, the technology is not new or some miraculous breakthrough by China. The fact that China has achieved this shows how far China has progressed in the past few decades, but by looking at Chinese aerospace thechnology based on its air defence and aircraft designs it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that they are being assisted by other countries or utilising foreign technology.

Never said it was a breakthrough. What you say about China being assited by other countries is perfectly right. So is UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, India, USA... Nowadays it is the case for everyone.

What I'm thinking, however, is that China wants to treat with USA as equal. I think that the missile in question is their best option to achieve that.

pmulcahy11b

08-07-2010, 08:22 PM

Targan

08-08-2010, 01:19 AM

...and the collapse of the U.S. economy. China is our #1 or #2 trading partner (Mexico being the other, IIRC). We owe them hundreds of billions of dollars and they own a lot of U.S. treasury bonds and that sort of thing. If they were to call in these outstanding debts, the U.S. economy would be ruined. They don't do this precisely because we are their #1 customer and that would be self-destructive from their economic POV. But to suggest that we would refuse to trade with them over missile sales? We simply can't afford that sort of gesture.

I was going to write a post saying exactly this but you've said it better than I would have so I'll just +1 your post.

Targan

08-08-2010, 01:23 AM

I often tell people that in 25 years or so, the US will be the no. 2 superpower -- China will be No. 1.

And when that happens nations in my country's position are either going to have to get even better at fence-sitting and keeping both sides happy, or are going to have to make some very difficult choices.

Abbott Shaull

08-08-2010, 08:07 AM

There are no true Superpowers left. A true Superpower has the ability to dictate to a Region what they will and will not do, with very little influence from the UN from the UN in allowing or not allowing it.

The US, Russia, China, and the UK have the abilities to become Superpowers again and technically have the capabilities to project it somewhat. What they lack is the economical independence they had once relay on. For China and Russia (late USSR) this is blessing in disguised for them. For UK and US and their allies all over the globe are tied to the economies of Russia and China in one way or another.

The problem is that what most people have failed to realized if someone did go to war with the likes of China or Russia, there economy is on much better foot hold than anyone who would take them on.

Matt Wiser

08-08-2010, 09:52 PM

Actually, no, to Raellus' original question, and here's why:

1) Targeting: The ChiComs (as I prefer to call them) have no real targeting for the weapon: no Bear-D equivalent and no RORSAT (Radar Ocean Recon Satellite).

2) Testing: So far from unclassified sources (Aviation Leak, Navy Times, etc.) the ChiComs have not tested the weapon against a sea target. And that would also include an honest test of the system against a moving target.

3) Guidance and warhead: Getting a ballistic missile with a terminal radar guidance to work was only done once, AFIK, and that was Pershing-II, against known target locations. A carrier is moving at 25-30 knots, and once launch-alert goes out, the carrier group will be moving at flank speed to open the distance from the intended target location. As for warhead, you don't generally load HE on a ballistic missile. It would be nuclear in this case. Which leads to the following:

The Soviets had a system under development in the '70s for the anti-carrier mission to be launched from Yankee-class SSBNs: it was designated by the USN as the SS-NX-13. A SLBM with a 1 MT warhead and range of about 400 miles. Ivan couldn't get the missile's terminal guidance to work, the boomer captains weren't happy about getting in close to a carrier group with the ASW coming at them, and there was a little thing called esclation. U.S policy at the time was that if tac nukes were used against U.S. ships at sea, nuclear retaliation against Soviet naval targets ashore would follow. Even a failed ChiCom attack with a nuclear DF-21 against a carrier group would lead to some kind of retaliation "in kind". The SS-NX-13 was cancelled in the late '70s, btw.

Finally, 4): AEGIS. With AEGIS-equipped ships having the anti-TBM mission along with Fleet Defense, one may assume that carriers will have protection from such TBM attack. Not to mention other defenses, such as EW, decoys-they're called "rubber duckies"-with radar reflectors, chaff, and close-in missiles such as RAM and RIM-156.

So, nice try. Looks good on parades and alarmist news articles. Other than that....

Dog 6

08-08-2010, 11:07 PM

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20100113.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/20080713.aspx

It's now up for sale like most of china's weapons

RN7

08-09-2010, 12:47 AM

It's an implied threat. The Chinese have long been the poor cousins in the superpower world, and now they're flexing their muscles a bit more. They want their piece of the world dominance pie. This is just a very small part of their plan to get it. I often tell people that in 25 years or so, the US will be the no. 2 superpower -- China will be No. 1. That may or may not be true, but they're definitely beginning to unwrap and want more of a say over what goes on in the world. Now that the Russians are no longer a superpower and they've basically subverted out economy, there's not much we can do about it.

There are a number of reasons why China will not be the leading superpower in 25 years time, most of which relate to why America is currently a superpower and why it will be very difficult for China to ever really match it.

A superpower does not only have to have military and political influence, but must also have economic, technological and cultural influence. Besides America the only country which can claim to have been a superpower on the aforementioned criteria over the past two hundred years has been Britain and the British Empire, as even the Soviet Union at its height was not a match for America in most of these areas.

Most people look at China’s rapid economic growth over the past 15 years to explain why China will soon match and overtake America as the world’s most powerful country. However the statistics are misleading. China’s recent growth in manufacturing has not greatly affected America’s position in world share of manufacturing over the past decade, and has far more affected other Asian countries and Europe, particularly the position of Japan in world manufacturing share. Also for China to match America’s economy it would have to grow by 10-11% every year over the next 25 years, which is higher than the current 9-10% rate, while America’s would have to grow at only 3% per year over 25 years which is a lot lower than the world average. Therefore China would have to achieve in 25 years what it took America to do in 90 years from 1945, and even then if measured in total GDP the per capita income of China would be only one quarter of America’s. All of this doesn’t take into account recessions, volatile world markets and political instability of which China is more vulnerable than America to. However some ignore total GDP statistics when looking at China, and discuss PPP GDP. By that criteria China’s economy is measured in much larger size, and would be the second largest in the world after America. However PPP statistics are basically the simplest tool used to measure a nations economic size, basically multiplying national income by the population and it is inaccurate and tells nothing of the size of the total economy, and international trade is conducted in nominal terms. Also America industry is far less dependent on exports than most other industrialised countries and China, largely due the fact that the US domestic market is so big that domestic companies don’t have to rely on exports to make large profits.

Some also point to the weak dollar as a reason why America will soon loose lose economic dominance. However the US dollar comprises 65% of global currency reserves, while the second highest share is that of the Euro at just 25%. Furthermore, the Euro is not rising as a percentage of total reserves, despite the EU and Eurozone adding many new member nations over the past decade. The Chinese Yuan represents under 2% of world reserves and China itself stockpiles US dollars. Also if America declining in financial dominance why is the stock markets of New York as big as Tokyo, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and Paris combined?

Also America is a liberal democracy and free market economy. It’s not perfect and like many other countries has its flaws, but China is communist country run by a politburo, and is not a free or a free thinking country. If you criticise the government in China you end up in prison, and China’s human rights record is appalling. Ask the Tibetans how free they are.

Another argument used to define China’s rise is its growing military capability. Currently America is unmatchable in almost every sphere of military power, the Russians still match it in nuclear weapons but nowhere else. No other country currently is even near having the ability to project military power despite military spending being only 3% of its economy which is a lower proportion than many other countries. China would have to multiply its defence spending by a factor of seven or eight annually for the next decade to even come near America, and unlike America which funds its defence spending almost effortlessly, this level of defence spending would bankrupt China. Also China would have to take over the role of global policeman which America does despite all its critics. The left-wingers, the pseudo intellectuals, Islamic fundamentalist and various people and countries with an axe to grind against the Yankee Imperialist love to hate America, and love to condemn it over its shameful past such as slavery, segregation, the treatment of Native Americans, and political interference in Latin America. But when some evil dictator or regime threatens or invades another country or commits acts of genocide despite UN sanctions, who does the world look to send in the cavalry? Are the Chinese going to put themselves forward and take up this burden? If America donates money to humanitarian crisis for example in Africa people criticise America for not donating enough or doing enough, but who ever asks China?

Another measurement of a countries power could be the reputation of its education system and knowledge economy. There are about 30 American universities which are renowned the world over, Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Stanford etc etc. And of the rated top 20 in the world 17 are American, two of the other three are in England and the other one isn’t Chinese. America is the centre of gravity for all types of scientific research, 32% of the world in 2007 which is twice as much China and the entire EU combined. America is not just dominant in research but it is the world leader in the process to deliver innovations to the global marketplace. To displace America, China would have to be dominant in producing new inventions and corporations that are adopted by the market into daily lives were America has and remains the focus of most technological progress and new technologies and influential applications continue to emerge from American companies. Also of the top of my head I could name twenty American household brand names such as Coca Cola, McDonalds, IBM, Ford, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Boeing, Xerox, Kodak, Google, Nike etc etc. I could also name quite a few European and Japanese brands, but I could not name one Chinese. One could say that the Chinese are merely emulating the Japanese and then the Koreans who were very successful in marketing their companies worldwide, but the Chinese have been at it for at least 15 years now and I cannot think of one brand name that I know is Chinese, and in fact I would say the dominance of American brand names has even grown over the past 15 years particularly in areas such as IT, computers and telecommunications where previously the Japanese were becoming a dominant force. Also in the entertainment industry; music and film, America absolutely dominates the world. In the film industry India is far bigger than China, and Britain is far more important and productive in music.

Also how many people want to immigrate to China and how many want to immigrate to America? Does China attract the best and brightest immigrants; in fact does it attract any immigrants? America has been importing people for centuries, and continues to do so in their millions, legally and illegally, while China has a net outflow of native born Chinese and many come to America.

Finally you could rate a countries power by its ambitions and accomplishments, and China’s ambitions were recently demonstrated by putting an astronaut into space. China is planning to send people to the moon over the next 15 years and even Mars by mid century. However China’s recent space achievements were greatly assisted by Russia and without Russian involvement I would say it would be doubtful that they could have put people into orbit let alone send them to the moon. It also counts on America not responding to a challenge to its domination in space activity. The last time that America was challenged in space it led to numerous space programs that totally eclipsed Soviet space activity and sent Neil Armstrong to the Moon, and that was 41 years ago!

RN7

08-09-2010, 12:47 AM

Mo I'm off to bed but I'll reply later to your comments ;)

Mohoender

08-09-2010, 01:32 AM

Mo I'm off to bed but I'll reply later to your comments ;)

Sleep well, I didn't sleep last night and be dreaming all day.;)

Dog 6

08-09-2010, 05:08 AM

well said RN7 ! :)

RN7

08-09-2010, 09:40 PM

It is a threat and not a threat. It is a threat as it could negate US capability to efficiently deploy a task force next to China but at the moment the only existing threat is that of US task forces. The goal of China (IMO) is not to threaten US in any way but to avoid being threaten by US. It is not a threat because it doesn't threaten US capability anywhere outside of seas close to China.

Well I think Matt has established that its not a threat.

I'm pretty sure they have some but I'm not convinced that US consider China a threat. In fact, I think that both countries will tighten their relations over the coming times.

Depends upon China's relationship with other countries, particularly its neighbours.

Someone else already said what I'm thinking. Actually, world economy would collapse.

No just China's, but it would lead to a worldwide recession.

Submarines could be enough. Then I don't think it to be planned.

Well they haven't been to successfull so far with their ballistic missile submarines.

Didn't say anything else. It doesn't mean that no one would be capable of making one. However, the only point of fielding a 5th generation aircraft would be to threaten US, what for?

Russia could if it had the money, Europe might if it pooled its resources, but not China on its own at the moment.

Did I say anything against the Royal Navy?

Well you did say " Absolutly dominant when it come to the sea", and I just thought I'd point out that the British nuclear submarine fleet would give the USN something to worry about, in fact a few other submarine fleets might as well.

Yes it was to great cost by the Japanese

Well were not talking about WW2. China has also had armed border disputes with the Soviet Union, India and Vietnam since 1945.

I disagree but that comes from a mistake on my part. I never thought of Chinese naval forces going very far from their coast.

Its not going be of much use to China if it wont go far from the Chinese coast when there is an enemy offshore.

What I'm thinking, however, is that China wants to treat with USA as equal. I think that the missile in question is their best option to achieve that.

I think the missile in question is a non starter and China has a long way to go before it will be equal with America.

dylan

08-10-2010, 04:06 PM

Hi Matt,

I respect your right to your own opinion on this, and note the several good points you make. I'll just offer an alternative viewpoint, not that I expect you to agree and not looking to start a flamewar.

Matt believes the PRC does not have the sensor suite to target the ASBM. In fact China has been working just as hard on the sensor, and sensor-to-shooter links as they have on the missile itself (this isn't just for the ASBM, of course, as an ocean surveillance suite will be just as useful potentially for other forms of attack on US interveeners - cruise missiles, hypersonic strike missiles, CAVs, subs, UUAVs, etc). Rather than just take my word for it, for examples of the sensor effort, see
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/11/oth-radar-and-asbm-threat.html
http://thetaiwanlink.blogspot.com/2009/12/pla-air-force-over-horizon-radar.html
and the more recent
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/chinas-oth-network.html
For RORSATs see "yaogan" which is, of course, described by the PRC as a civilian satellite series to be sure. In 2008 the PRC also launched a data relay satellite, which as you'll know expands their options.

Also search "china strategic uavs" to see the investment in developing Global Hawk type aircraft.

Matt asserts that the warhead must be nuclear. Quite the contrary. The warhead is far more likely to be some form of submunitions, or a penetrator, or EMP. See
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2009/04/dragons-fire-plas-2nd-artillery-corps.html
and scroll down to test locations to see the testing already down with these types of payloads. A mission kill on a carrier is far more important for PLA objectives in East Asia than starting 'global thermonuclear war'.

SS-NX-13 is an interesting story. Matt provides one interpretation,but I'd note another is that the system tested fine but was not seen as valuable enough to survive the arms control treaties of the 1970s - which limited all SSBNs regardless of range or purpose.

Anyway, just a few alternate interpretations, everyone is free to believe what they want.

pmulcahy11b

08-10-2010, 05:58 PM

It's like I said -- it's an implied threat. Whether it really works or not isn't as important as whether we believe it might work. It's like with Gorbachev and Star Wars -- it wasn't anywhere near a reality, but Reagan made Gorbachev think it was real, and it's one part of what led to the end of the Cold War.

Matt Wiser

08-10-2010, 10:36 PM

One assumes the weapon will work under certain circumstances; after all, that's the intel community's job-hope for the best, but assume the worst is possible and prepare accordingly. And you can bet the AEGIS program office is thinking up how best to use AEGIS ships to counter this system, should it be deployed. As for other countermeasures, such as snuffing ChiCom UAVs or patrol planes, killing UAVs at high altitude is also something AEGIS is capable of, and Hornets can splash any patrol planes, should that be necessary. It's also a general rule in the ballistic missile business that you don't put TNT equivalents on a long-range missile. SRBMs or some IRBMs (like those operated by India and Pakistan, Iran, or NK) actually have conventional or submunition warheads-airfields and other area targets are what they're intended for. But when you're dealing with a moving target, unless accurate targeting in the terminal phase is possible (and we never did that, AFIK from open source material), there's only one possible warhead choice, and that's nuclear. Which leads the ChiCom leadership to have to make a decision: Is it worth killing a carrier with DF-21, and having several mainland naval targets turned to radioactive deserts in retaliation (along with the suspected launch site)? Or do they tell the ChiCom Navy to try and do it the old-fashioned way, with submarines and land-based aircraft?

Webstral

08-11-2010, 02:21 AM

Regarding intelligence on Chinese advanced systems, we should bear in mind that the Chinese are diligent students of Sun Tzu in general and deception warfare in particular. It’s probably safe to say that American intelligence-gathering is superior in some technical aspects, such as imagery and signals processing. It’s equally safe to say that the Chinese are well aware of our strengths. The most dangerous attitude the American intelligence community could have is the assumption that we know what we think we know. Hubris has laid low many great powers.

That much said, if there is deception at work it’s probably on the side of over-stating China’s state-of-the-art abilities. Sun Tzu observes that it’s easier to beat an enemy who is convinced he will lose. If we get worried about the survivability of our carriers, we’ll make an adjustment. If the Chinese can use deception operations to make us adjust to their liking, it hardly matters whether the new weapon works as advertised or not.

Webstral

Targan

08-11-2010, 02:36 AM

Regarding intelligence on Chinese advanced systems, we should bear in mind that the Chinese are diligent students of Sun Tzu in general and deception warfare in particular. It’s probably safe to say that American intelligence-gathering is superior in some technical aspects, such as imagery and signals processing. It’s equally safe to say that the Chinese are well aware of our strengths. The most dangerous attitude the American intelligence community could have is the assumption that we know what we think we know. Hubris has laid low many great powers.

Well said.

Another thing to remember is that the Chinese government has massive amounts of money to throw around. Throw enough money at a technical problem and eventually you will see results.

I'm much more comfortable with the USA being the world's dominant power than China but the balance of power is already starting to shift. What concerns me is what the US might be willing to do to maintain its dominance. It seems to me that America has a lot of emotional capital wrapped up in being on top. At some point the faith of the American people in their nation's dominance will be shaken. I hope the public backlash from that won't result in rash decisions being taken by the government of the day.

mikeo80

08-11-2010, 08:33 AM

I think that there is a much easier way for the Chinese military to go after our Nimitz class carriers. This scenario assumes (yes, I know what that means :p) that the Chinese govt. has decided that war is inevitable and doesn't care about the consequenses.

Get a bunch of "cigarrette boats", load them with tac nukes and gasoline/ av gas/whatever the boat runs on. Start an incident near Taiwan. When the US Seventh fleet comes near to project power, send two/three/four hundred boats at the fleet. Yes, the Seventh will sink many, but can it sink enough? All it takes is one getting close enough.

This seems to be the strategy that Iran is threatening our Gulf forces with.

Just my two cents worth.

Mike

jester

08-11-2010, 10:13 AM

To take out a carier, the Chinese are very patient and have used long term agents. This has been proven via some of the recent espionage cases of the last 20 years. Some had even Befriended a former president, they had infiltrated our nuclear program and stolen elements of the aegis system.

I also used sleepers setting up cells in many of the cities on the Pacific Coast of the United States in my home grown history <which I see is also used in the 2013 timeline>

They are patient, have similiar sleepers infiltrate the US Navy, with several station aboard vessels in that battlegroup, all it takes is one or two aboard a vessel of over 5000 persons to throw a monkey wrench into the ships operations. Add a couple more on the support vessels who refuel and rearm, provide antisubmarine protection, radar defense and anti ship or air capability and you will open up several chinks <hey, the word fits> in the armor.

As for getting aboard the vessel, or in the task force. This is possible or the chances are severely increased the way the US military recruits with giving personel a selection of MOS specialties or at least fields based on what is projected to be open and the score of their Entrance Exam. <The chances could be further increased by having the spies well schooled in aspects that will allow them to score high in portion of test that determines the suitability for a specific job field. Hell, even a cook can wreak havoc on a ship or unit! What if a strain of botulism is introduced into a ships ICE Cream supply durring the ships Ice Cream Night! You'd take out 90% of the vessel!>

Add such agents who could not only pick up the methods of operation and training and equipment. But, should they need to act, well the cook example is a big one. Or a failure of the electrical system that makes the carriers elevator operate would put it at a serious disadvantage to operations. or a million other little thats that could be done that could cause systems to go down, be delayed or degrade Thus opening chinks in the ships armor making it much more vulnerable from an outside attack.

Webstral

08-11-2010, 03:55 PM

At some point the faith of the American people in their nation's dominance will be shaken. I hope the public backlash from that won't result in rash decisions being taken by the government of the day.

Polling, which is admittedly a very crude gauge, suggests we are at that point. I maintain the fantasy that we yet will find a constructive way of expressing our rivalry with China, such as exploration of and development of space resources. Provided a suitable institutional framework can be established for development of extraterrestrial resources, such as lunar light helium and platinum, it might be possible to see national pride involved in the construction of infrastructure, energy resources, permanent stations, technological advances, etc. A carrier-killing missile (functional or otherwise) might make itself obsolete by inspiring greater efforts toward commercial competition and flagship efforts.

Yes, I'm a hopeless idealist. Still, since our competition with the Chinese is taking a very different form than our competition with the Soviets, I hope that we might recognize that we have more to gain from seeking common solutions than squabbling over the considerable but limited larder that exists already. Otherwise, there will always be yet another carrier-killing missile.

Webstral

Legbreaker

08-11-2010, 07:40 PM

From the Killing Carriers thread back in March:
...there is a type of weapon I understand was in use that would be perfect for this that has not been mentioned, but more on that in a minute.

-Moderate to strong storms can effectively ground all aircraft on a carrier, while the soviet land-based aircraft could launch and then rise above the weather at about 200nm to launch. The violent motions of the ships, not to mention green water getting to the gun barrels rendering the guns of the smaller screening craft inoperable, will dramatically reduce the combat effectiveness of the anti-aircraft screen, forcing the defence to rely primarily on missiles and making it harder to detect wave-skimming missiles. Further, the large waves will mess with targeting systems of both sides, and that would reduce the percentage of missiles that maintain correct lock. That is a sword that strikes both ways, but as most modern Soviet missiles would lock into the radar transmissions and heat of the ships that would be effected less than the radar guided point defence missiles attacking them. Since the north Atlantic is known for it's nasty weather, a Soviet strike timed to make the most of the storm could easily prove wise and profitable for them. Just ask the English, especially where the "Invincible Armada" of Spanish warships are concerned...

-Oil rigs in the North Atlantic also report occasional freak waves, up to 50m high or more. One of these could not be controlled by the Soviets, but they would make a mess of screening warships such as frigates and destroyers. While a carrier could well survive them, it may clean a lot of excess planes from the deck at an inopportune time, and could capsize them if they were focused on something else and did not maneuver into position to survive such a wave( like the captain was focussed on launching aircraft, for example).

-The russians had developed in the early 80's a new type of mine that could be dropped from even fishing vesseles, let alone old subs or warships. Rather than floating on the surface, these mines would sit on the bottom and wait for a warship (or, more exactly, a ship with sonar that did not have the right IFF signal in the sonar) to pass overhead. The sonar ping then activated the mine, launching a torpedo into the ship from underneath.

Now a screening fleet would usually be pinging, as are fishing boats, coincedently, but it would not take much for such a minefield to be laid with mines that were programmed to activate when they recieved a given signal, if they don't already have them. Then, while the fleet chases the sub giving off the signal, it will take them some time to realize that the torpedoes are not coming from a hidden wolfpack, by which time they could well be in the middle of a minefield. Throw in a real wolfpack, and the CBG will have a nightmare under the water.

Of course, combine any of these, and you could well deal with more than 5 CBG's without needing to resort to nukes. Nature is fickle, especially at sea, and could well throw it's weight against either, or even both sides, as history can tell.

RN7

08-11-2010, 08:58 PM

Hi Dylan, nice post and very interesting blog link about China’s sensor and missile capabilities.

What can be gauged from this is that China has a growing land based OTH and radar ocean reconnaissance satellite capability. However this information seems to still be conjecture from a blog, and as the author admits towards the end of his article “ OTH radar development in China is still a relatively blurry topic, with many details still left to be uncovered “.

One thing I did notice from reading these links was the influence of Russia in Chinese sensor development. As stated “It is possible that Russian assistance was sought when developing the currently deployed systems. A Russian OTH-SW system of unknown type has been located near Petropavlovsk, and appears remarkably similar to the Chinese OTH-SW system”. Also “Russian input may have been sought in developing the OTH-SW system, given the receiver's similarity to that of the Nakhodka OTH-SW system. The Russian system is likely the more capable of the two systems, however, given that the transmitter is not located in close proximity to the receiver suggesting a system of greater power output and therefore greater range”. Additionally “The operational systems are likely more powerful than either the prototype OTH-B or the Russian transportable IRIDA OTH-SW system and therefore are likely to have greater range capability than is depicted”, and in regards to the target the DF-21D’s target identification capability “it would be provided by Chinese-produced derivatives of Russia's Kornet EO and radar satellites, the first constellation of which is scheduled to be operational in 2009”. I touched on the influence of Russia earlier in this post and what I have read from your links seems to confirm China’s reliance on Russian technology to develop it aerospace and air defence capabilities.

Here’s another interesting blog about the guidance and aerodynamic control of the DF-21D.

http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2819/df-21-delta-some-early-thoughts

SS-NX-13 is an interesting story. Matt provides one interpretation,but I'd note another is that the system tested fine but was not seen as valuable enough to survive the arms control treaties of the 1970s - which limited all SSBNs regardless of range or purpose.

One Soviet Navy Golf-IV was converted to carry six experimental SS-NX-13 missiles in the 1970’s. The interpretation that the SS-NX-13 or KY-9 was cancelled for political reasons as part of the arms control treaties in the 1970’s is plausible and a credible explanation for the weapon systems demise, although I would still favour Matt’s interpretation. I would also offer an alternative interpretation, the introduction of the Tu-22M strategic and naval strike bomber which entered Soviet Air Force and Navy service at about the same time as the development of the SS-NX-13. The Tu-22M with AS-4 (Kh-22) and AS-6 (KSR-5) missiles was a cheaper, more deployable and more effective way of challenging the US Navy and NATO at sea.

Mohoender

08-11-2010, 09:02 PM

There are a number of reasons why China will not be the leading superpower in 25 years time, most of which relate to why America is currently a superpower and why it will be very difficult for China to ever really match it.

A superpower does not only have to have military and political influence, but must also have economic, technological and cultural influence. Besides America the only country which can claim to have been a superpower on the aforementioned criteria over the past two hundred years has been Britain and the British Empire, as even the Soviet Union at its height was not a match for America in most of these areas.

Interesting criteria to define a superpower (very post 1945) but really wrong in the same time. This would imply that US has been a superpower only between 1945-1990. Personnaly, I would consider that US became a superpower in the late 19th century and still is one.

US has not relied on its military until 1945. Nevertheless, no one could have challenged US by means of arms after 1880. In my poor opinion that made US the most civilized country from 1776 to 1945. Since 1990, I would give that title to Australia and Canada (I'll make friends:D).

US political influence was felt as early as 1854 with the forced opening of Japan to the world. It never stopped since that time. It reached a peak after ww2 and it is currently going down.

US economic weight, however, became felt only after 1914. It still is felt today but it is seriously challenged. By the way, strictly speaking, US economy is now second, behind that of EU (which is in no way a superpower, far from it).

US technology is not at all as influencial as it had been in the past. When I came back from US in 1993, I brought back a full suitcase of US technological gears. When I visited in 1998, US had nothing of interest to a European. In 2003, I thought about bringing technology with me to US. This might not last, however.

The cultural influence of US remain high but this is certainly where it looses ground the fastest. Germany is ahead in many ways and Asia as well.

IMPO, the future leading countries will be these capable of reducing their dependence on oil. China is on the run, EU as well (Germany may be leading, way ahead of anyone else). US certainly is on the run. For my part, I would not bury US too fast but I don't think it will ever take the position it once had.;)

Raellus

08-11-2010, 09:07 PM

I couldn't tell you what publication it was but I was thumbing through a British aviation mag at the local Barnes & Noble and there was an article about China's ongoing attempts at modernizing it's combat air fleet. In the article, a Chinese official announced that China was 10 years or so from fielding its own, home-grown gen-5 fighter aircraft. There was a photo of a mock-up and it looked suspiciously like the Northrup F-23.

China is most likely receiving help (France, Russia, Israel), but this doesn't diminish its accomplishments. It's not like the U.S. develops its hi-tech systems in a vacuum. Bottom line is, the Chinese are rapidly improving their strategic and operational capabilities. As I said before, the Chinese are building their military for large-scale conventional conflicts, while the U.S. is not. Who will be better prepared for a war in the East Asian theatre in 10-20 years? If current trends continue, I'd put my money on the Chinese.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud of my country's military. I've been a big fan since I was a boy. My dad's side of the family are all vets and my brother's carrying on the tradition in the USN. What bothers me is when people underestimate other nations. That's the one of the cardinal sins of any strategist. Writing off the Chinese is not a good idea. Hubris has deep-sixed many a great power. I don't want to see the West make that mistake vis-a-vis China.

pmulcahy11b

08-11-2010, 09:20 PM

Good example of Israel helping the Chinese: Look at the new J-10, then look at the abortive Israeli Lavi fighter. It's long been suspected that the Israelis helped the Chinese with the J-10. I wouldn't be surprised if the Israelis are seeing the writing on the wall and positioning themselves with China.

RN7

08-11-2010, 10:15 PM

Interesting criteria to define a superpower (very post 1945) but really wrong in the same time. This would imply that US has been a superpower only between 1945-1990. Personnaly, I would consider that US became a superpower in the late 19th century and still is one.

Well there were no superpowers before 1945 as no one country could be considered absolutely dominant. There was just a collection of great and regional powers notably America, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. Until 1914 only Britain due to its naval power and the size and wealth of its empire could be considered a dominant power worldwide, but until WW2 no country was dominant although some were more powerful in a military, economic and technological sense than others.

US has not relied on its military until 1945. Nevertheless, no one could have challenged US by means of arms after 1880. In my poor opinion that made US the most civilized country from 1776 to 1945. Since 1990, I would give that title to Australia and Canada (I'll make friends).

Well there was the Monroe Doctrine and major wars involving American forces against Mexico, Spain and Germany, as well as numerous small battles and expeditions across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Until the 1930’s the US military considered Britain and the British Empire a major rival and capable of threatening the continental US, which Britain was in both cases. The US Army came up with War Plan Red in 1930 to invade Canada in hostilities with the British Empire to prevent Britain using Canada as a staging point to attack America. The plan wasn’t declassified until 1974.

US political influence was felt as early as 1854 with the forced opening of Japan to the world. It never stopped since that time. It reached a peak after ww2 and it is currently going down.

It has actually been in decline since the late 1940’s as North America was hardly effected by WW2 in comparison to Europe and Asia, but has since recovered. This trend was temporarily reversed with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s but has since been on the decline again.

US economic weight, however, became felt only after 1914. It still is felt today but it is seriously challenged. By the way, strictly speaking, US economy is now second, behind that of EU (which is in no way a superpower, far from it).

US economic power has been seriously challenged since the 1970’s by Europe and Japan, and now China has joined in. The combined EU has a larger economy than the USA, but the USA is once country not 27.

US technology is not at all as influencial as it had been in the past. When I came back from US in 1993, I brought back a full suitcase of US technological gears. When I visited in 1998, US had nothing of interest to a European. In 2003, I thought about bringing technology with me to US. This might not last, however.

This all goes in cycles, in the 1950’s all the best gadgets were American, from the 1980’s they were Japanese, and now they could be designed in any number of countries and built in another. Basically I look at the brand name and there plenty of nice fancy gadgets being built by American companies at the moment.

The cultural influence of US remain high but this is certainly where it looses ground the fastest. Germany is ahead in many ways and Asia as well.

In what way is Germany or Asia more culturally influential than America?

IMPO, the future leading countries will be these capable of reducing their dependence on oil. China is on the run, EU as well (Germany may be leading, way ahead of anyone else). US certainly is on the run. For my part, I would not bury US too fast but I don't think it will ever take the position it once had.

Of the major powers in the world only Russia is not dependent on oil imports, Britain is also fairly self sufficient in oil for the next few years but their part of the EU. America is probably in a better position than Europe and most of Asia in oil dependence, as in addition to its own oil it borders Mexico which is a major oil producer, and Canada which has the largest oil shale reserves in the world. The only real alternative to oil in energy production is other fossil fuels such as coal and gas, nuclear power or green energy production methods such as hydro, wind etc. Unfortunately green energy is only going to have a marginal effect on the energy needs of most countries, and in regards to coal America has the world’s largest reserves and it also has the largest nuclear power industry on the planet.

RN7

08-11-2010, 10:42 PM

I couldn't tell you what publication it was but I was thumbing through a British aviation mag at the local Barnes & Noble and there was an article about China's ongoing attempts at modernizing it's combat air fleet. In the article, a Chinese official announced that China was 10 years or so from fielding its own, home-grown gen-5 fighter aircraft. There was a photo of a mock-up and it looked suspiciously like the Northrup F-23.

Raellus take a look at the following links to see what the Chinese air force is currently flying.

http://www.scramble.nl/cn.htm
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/default.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plaaf-equip.htm

The best combat aircaft they have is the Russian Su-27SK/Su-30. Barely 20%of their combat airforce would be capable of taking on front-line USAF/USN/USMC fighters, let alone achieving air superiority. How are they going to put a 5th generation aircraft in service within 10 years on their own?

As I said before, the Chinese are building their military for large-scale conventional conflicts, while the U.S. is not.

What was the Gulf war, the Invasion of Iraq and ongoing fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan? The US is better prepared than any country for a conventional war.

Who will be better prepared for a war in the East Asian theatre in 10-20 years? If current trends continue, I'd put my money on the Chinese.

East Asia is China's back yard, its not America's, so the Chinese have the natural advantage of being there in the first place. However America more than any country is and will be able to send air, sea and land forces to that reason to deter Chinese aggression against countries friendly to America like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.

Legbreaker

08-11-2010, 10:53 PM

America more than any country is and will be able to send air, sea and land forces to that reason to deter Chinese aggression against countries friendly to America like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.
Unless of course the American economy continues it's downward spiral into the toilet and they can't afford to maintain what they've already got...
Who knows what will happen in 10-20 years? All I know is that it takes money, lots and lots of money to field and maintain the nice hi-tech equipment.
The Chinese economy is growing. The American economy is in a little difficulty.

RN7

08-11-2010, 11:32 PM

Unless of course the American economy continues it's downward spiral into the toilet and they can't afford to maintain what they've already got...
Who knows what will happen in 10-20 years? All I know is that it takes money, lots and lots of money to field and maintain the nice hi-tech equipment.
The Chinese economy is growing. The American economy is in a little difficulty.

Despite being in a recession the US is not doing to badly at the moment. According to the latest data the US economy is 14,245 billion US$ compares to China's 4,909 billion US$, which is about three times bigger than China. The US inflation rate is 1.1% compared with China's 2.9% and the US interest rate is 0.25% compared with China's 5.31%. Also 39.7% of China's entire GDP is generated by the export of goods and services which seems to indicate that China's economic boom seem a bit reliant on trade with other countries. Also America's GDP growth rate is considerably higher than the whole of Europe and Canada, and also than Australia where you live Leg Breaker ;)

Mohoender

08-12-2010, 12:57 AM

Well there were no superpowers before 1945 as no one country could be considered absolutely dominant. There was just a collection of great and regional powers notably America, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. Until 1914 only Britain due to its naval power and the size and wealth of its empire could be considered a dominant power worldwide, but until WW2 no country was dominant although some were more powerful in a military, economic and technological sense than others.

I tend to agree with you. Then how could Britain pretend to have been a superpower? My answer was only considering our own saying. However, you forgot about USSR: Definitely a military power, no need to advocate that it was politicaly influencial, until its economical collapses of 1991 it was a true weight (Too bad Yeltsin listened to US and the FMI, what else could you wait from a drunk?), at a technicological level it often was a match and it took the lead in several fields, culturaly it was very influencial (and still is) except in US but that was only because of a political paranoid choice by US (something US shared with USSR for 45 years, they had Beria, US had Mc Carthy).

Well there was the Monroe Doctrine and major wars involving American forces against Mexico, Spain and Germany, as well as numerous small battles and expeditions across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Until the 1930’s the US military considered Britain and the British Empire a major rival and capable of threatening the continental US, which Britain was in both cases. The US Army came up with War Plan Red in 1930 to invade Canada in hostilities with the British Empire to prevent Britain using Canada as a staging point to attack America. The plan wasn’t declassified until 1974.

Major wars with Mexico or Spain, you can't be serious? What wars with Germany? US was involved in WW1 but only when the bet had ended. It was a great help nonetheless but essentially proved that it was highly influencial at the diplomatic level in one of the smartest move since the 1815's peace. Then, it withdrew from the bargain, failing to conduct it to its conclusion, leaving europeans to mess it around. I didn't include ww2 simply because it resulted in US becoming a great power. What is amaizing is that USSR could chalenge it for so long given the level of destruction and casualties it sustained.

It has actually been in decline since the late 1940’s as North America was hardly effected by WW2 in comparison to Europe and Asia, but has since recovered. This trend was temporarily reversed with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s but has since been on the decline again.

I'm not sure we understand each other on that one

US economic power has been seriously challenged since the 1970’s by Europe and Japan, and now China has joined in. The combined EU has a larger economy than the USA, but the USA is once country not 27.

I'm talking only at the economic level. In that matter, EU largely acts as one country, sometimes more closely bound that the 50 US states. I never stated that EU was a country. If I wish it could become one, I doubt that it ever will.

This all goes in cycles, in the 1950’s all the best gadgets were American, from the 1980’s they were Japanese, and now they could be designed in any number of countries and built in another. Basically I look at the brand name and there plenty of nice fancy gadgets being built by American companies at the moment.

Equally true for anyone else (at least in the OCDE). American companies are no longer american as European companies are no longer european.

In what way is Germany or Asia more culturally influential than America?

In a simple way. The cultural center had largely been Paris between 1850-1950, New York between 1950-1995, now it definitely is Berlin. Outside of mass products, there are very few qualitiy cultural production going out of US at the moment (no more for France, for exemple). When americans artists are well known they go to Berlin, a few decades ago it was the opposite. If you get to food, you can forget about US (Burger..., are going down quick). In that field, Germany is equally a wasteland but asia is quite dominant (France is still there, but the French Cuisine is no longer the dominant one). Germany is rising in music (with Britain still there). Asian movies (that could include Russia) is in a good position. However, I will agree on one thing, the cultural world is always on the move and it changes faster than yesterday. One last thing, I don't count politics when I talk culture. And an ultimate one, I would not count culture as something to determine if a country is or is not a superpower.

Of the major powers in the world only Russia is not dependent on oil imports, Britain is also fairly self sufficient in oil for the next few years but their part of the EU. America is probably in a better position than Europe and most of Asia in oil dependence, as in addition to its own oil it borders Mexico which is a major oil producer, and Canada which has the largest oil shale reserves in the world. The only real alternative to oil in energy production is other fossil fuels such as coal and gas, nuclear power or green energy production methods such as hydro, wind etc. Unfortunately green energy is only going to have a marginal effect on the energy needs of most countries, and in regards to coal America has the world’s largest reserves and it also has the largest nuclear power industry on the planet.

And does it still thinks in term that are outdated by 50 years ? I don't think so, US may not be in Kyoto but Americans (I mean people) are really motivated when you get to new energies. At least all those I know and that's quite a few people. If US was only to rely on coal and nukes, it will be down before the 25 years we were talking about. I'm sure they will use them but I also think that americans are smarter than simply counting on this. In addition, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico will make its mark (I hope). I don't know what Americans think about it, I know that Europeans underestimate it but, for my part, I consider it to be a catastrophe that will prove as bad as Chernobyl. I'm more confident than that in Americans, what made US such a great contry was its capability to be inovative. I don't think it's gone, all the contrary.

I think we could agree on the conclusion but everything will depend on the choices that are made on the long term. I fear that US could underestimate the rest of the world and, as a result, lose a lot, especially as the world still overestimate US.

Mohoender

08-12-2010, 01:24 AM

Despite being in a recession the US is not doing to badly at the moment. According to the latest data the US economy is 14,245 billion US$ compares to China's 4,909 billion US$, which is about three times bigger than China. The US inflation rate is 1.1% compared with China's 2.9% and the US interest rate is 0.25% compared with China's 5.31%. Also 39.7% of China's entire GDP is generated by the export of goods and services which seems to indicate that China's economic boom seem a bit reliant on trade with other countries. Also America's GDP growth rate is considerably higher than the whole of Europe and Canada, and also than Australia where you live Leg Breaker ;)

Yes, but what amount of goods do you buy in China with 4,909 billion US$ and what amount of goods do you buy in US with 14,245 billion US$? Forget about GDP and do it by PPP (purchasing power parity). Then you get: EU (14,793), US (14,256) and China (8,765). Quite different isn't it? And more accurate. Looking at GDPs is an illusion.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

And if you want to feel quite bad, look at the estimates. I can't wait for 2011 to know if the planned evolution is right or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_%28PPP%29_estimate s

Mohoender

08-12-2010, 01:43 AM

Something I forgot about China. It spends ten time less than US in its military while it has a PPP equals to 60% that of US. I might be too quick to jump at a conclusion but it makes me think that China doesn't give a damn about competing militarily with US. I don't think China ever wanted to compete with US in that matter and I'll be surprised if it does before long.

Legbreaker

08-12-2010, 01:47 AM

And it only takes one or two bad decisions by the government of the day to really screw up an economy...
Generally speaking, politicians are more interested in votes than responsible financial management (although often the two do tend to go hand in hand). Lobbyists are paid obscene amounts in some countries to influence said politicians to make decisions to suit just their one small area of interest. What's good for the country (and it's military) are often forgotten for short term, or even personal gain.

Mohoender

08-12-2010, 02:38 AM

And it only takes one or two bad decisions by the government of the day to really screw up an economy...

Agree and it is even more true for China. If it ever revert to a more radical ideology, then, and only then, will it become a threat. The worse ennemy of China is China itself.

Then, I don't think of China as a threat (militarily) to the West but China certainly thinks of the West as a threat to it's territorial integrity. The late 18th, 19th and 20th century proved that more than enough. The 21st already did.

Someone said that they are adept of Sun Tzu, that's true and, therefore, they could well be thinking that starting a war is already loosing it (To these days, China is the sole country that gave its word not to launch an atomic bomb at an ennemy not possessing the bomb). In addition, China is more dangerous when it comes to trade. After all, they are the people who have been the most successful at that over the past 5000 years.

RN7

08-12-2010, 12:12 PM

Yes, but what amount of goods do you buy in China with 4,909 billion US$ and what amount of goods do you buy in US with 14,245 billion US$? Forget about GDP and do it by PPP (purchasing power parity). Then you get: EU (14,793), US (14,256) and China (8,765). Quite different isn't it? And more accurate. Looking at GDPs is an illusion.

I was hoping you would use the PPP model. Purchasing Power Parity is the idea that adjustments to exchange rates will cause the value of a particular good in two different countries to be equal, and therefore is the amount of a certain basket of basic goods which can be bought in any one country with the standard international currency which is basically the US$. But the same good is not worth the same amount everywhere, in fact it’s not always the same even within the same country. Add geographic distance along with variations in laws and tax rates, price differences can become quite substantial. PPP exchange-rate calculation is considered controversial because of the difficulties of finding comparable items to compare purchasing power across countries. PPP estimations is complicated by the fact that countries do not simply differ in a uniform price levels, as differences can be greater between food prices and house prices but less than the difference in entertainment prices. It is necessary to use a price index for comparisons which is difficult because purchasing patterns and even the goods available differ across countries and it is necessary to make adjustments for differences in the quality of goods and services, and additional difficulties arise when more than two countries are to be compared.

The main reasons why different measures do not perfectly reflect standards of living are that PPP numbers can vary even within one specific good used, making it a rough estimate and differences in quality of goods are hard to measure. The goods that the currency can buy are categorised into different types. Local, non-tradable goods and services like electric power that are produced and sold domestically, and tradable goods such as non-perishable commodities sold on the international market. The more a product falls into the first category the further its price will be from the currency exchange model such as PPP, while the second category products tend to trade close to the currency exchange rate. Processed and expensive products are likely to fall into the second category and drift away from the PPP model. To answer your question about how much would 4,909 billion US$ buy in China and how much would 14,245 billion US$ buy in America, even if the PPP value of China’s currency is five times stronger than the currency exchange rate, it won’t buy five times as much of internationally traded goods. PPP calculations tend to overemphasise the primary sector contribution, and underemphasise the industrial and service sector contributions to the economy of a nation. Basically PPP is an artificial and inaccurate way to measure the economy of countries, and the nature and geography of supply and demand leads to natural inequalities among countries and a calculation based on the assumption of PPP must be viewed with suspicion. However some think it’s a good calculation system, but other prefer using nominal GDP and the fact that China has the second largest economy in the world is only validated by PPP, and not by any other measurement system. What is the estimate for China by GDP for 2011?

And if you want to feel quite bad, look at the estimates. I can't wait for 2011 to know if the planned evolution is right or not.

If the average per capita income of an American in 2010 is about $47,000, and the average for a Chinese is $3,700, which country do you think is doing the best? And why would I feel bad, I’m not American.

I'll get back to you on the other posts later Mo ;)

Raellus

08-12-2010, 06:13 PM

The best combat aircaft they have is the Russian Su-27SK/Su-30. Barely 20%of their combat airforce would be capable of taking on front-line USAF/USN/USMC fighters, let alone achieving air superiority. How are they going to put a 5th generation aircraft in service within 10 years on their own?

I didn't make the claim, the Chinese did. I'm sure that they are overestimating a bit but I don't doubt that they intend to do it. Given their recent successes at modernization, they probably will. Their AF is far more capable today than it was 20 years ago. In another 20, they will have further closed the technological gap on us.

And there's something to be said for sheer numbers and interior lines of supply. If the U.S. and China went to war in east Asia, the U.S. forces would be at the end of a very long lines of supply while the Chinese would be fighting essentially in their own backyard.

What was the Gulf war, the Invasion of Iraq and ongoing fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan? The US is better prepared than any country for a conventional war.

You are right about the Desert Storm and OIF. You could not be more wrong about the war in Afghanistan. It is the epitome of a guerilla/counterinsurgency war. No NATO ground force commander would call what's going on over there a conventional war. (If you mean "non-nuclear" you are correct, but that would be putting words in your mouth). This fundamental slip actually supports my point that the Chinese are not to be taken lightly. Despite our massive technological superiority over the Taliban, including complete air supremacy, the U.S. and its allies have not been able to defeat them strategically after 9 years of combat operations. And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees.

Abbott Shaull

08-12-2010, 06:34 PM

Mohoender

08-13-2010, 08:19 AM

If the average per capita income of an American in 2010 is about $47,000, and the average for a Chinese is $3,700, which country do you think is doing the best? And why would I feel bad, I’m not American.

I'll get back to you on the other posts later Mo ;)

Sorry didn't think the "feel bad" in that way, cultural chock issue:). For the best country, I would argue none. I think you have made some good points and I'm sure I did too. About PPP, I was sure it was controversial, but GDP is too. It's always a question of point of view.

If you go that way, you can't compare China and US at all, Western ideas are not Asian ideas (except for Japan). Still, I have spent time in Portugal from 1986 to 2002 and I can tell you that the PPP has some true meaning.

I'll stop that exchange here, however, because I think we are going in circle now. I will not convince you and you can't convince me:rolleyes:. Future will tell and we will probably be all dead before that. I definitely don't think China to ever challenge US, not under the current ideology.

RN, thanks for the exchange;)

Mohoender

08-13-2010, 08:44 AM

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Soviets were there for almost 10 years and they had superior technology and couldn't win the war. The locals are only doing what I would suspect, people would do when some foreign army moves in. They are fighting back. Much like the French did during WWII, and numerous other places since.

There are many countries in Asia and Africa that remain nation in name only where very little beyond the Capital is under the control of the "Central Goverment".

The French were not the best exemple you could come up with;). French freedom fighters were active but they were far from being fighting all the way back. Yougoslavia, Poland, Netherland and even Germany were much better exemples. 2 million germans were killed during ww2 fighting Nazi. They were the most active freedom fighter and could not count on any ally support.

In Afghanistan, I can see only two ways of winning the war: Genocide of most of the Afghan population (perfectly inacceptable for US) and paying warlords/talibans (increasingly bearable). It was the same for the Soviets. As long as they remained in Afghanistan they were on the losing side. From 1988 to 1991, the communist government of Afghanistan reverted to victory. It would have achieved it if soviet backing (3 billion US$/year) had not stopped in 1991. Something else about Afghanistan, NATO has soldiers, they have warriors.

RN7

08-14-2010, 12:47 PM

I didn't make the claim, the Chinese did. I'm sure that they are overestimating a bit but I don't doubt that they intend to do it. Given their recent successes at modernization, they probably will. Their AF is far more capable today than it was 20 years ago. In another 20, they will have further closed the technological gap on us.

To be honest the only progress that they have made over the past 20 years has been to replace the huge numbers of block obsolete aircraft they previously had, with relatively modest numbers of domestic designed aircraft and buy and license build smaller numbers of modern foreign (mainly Russian) aircraft and air defence systems. It has certainly improved China's air capabilities in many ways, and has also closed the technology gap with its major regional neighbours but it has hardly been revolutionary.

And there's something to be said for sheer numbers and interior lines of supply. If the U.S. and China went to war in east Asia, the U.S. forces would be at the end of a very long lines of supply while the Chinese would be fighting essentially in their own backyard.

But the US has military and logistic bases across the globe, and many in the Pacific region including Japan and South Korea. Also the US has unmatchable airlift and sealift capabilities, and could bring troops, equipment and supplies at will and China could do little or nothing to prevent it. The US miltary established this capability during WW2 and has been prefecting it ever since.

You are right about the Desert Storm and OIF.

So when you claimed that the US wasn't building for large scale conventional wars, how did you miss Desert Storm and OIF?

You could not be more wrong about the war in Afghanistan. It is the epitome of a guerilla/counterinsurgency war. No NATO ground force commander would call what's going on over there a conventional war. (If you mean "non-nuclear" you are correct, but that would be putting words in your mouth). This fundamental slip actually supports my point that the Chinese are not to be taken lightly. Despite our massive technological superiority over the Taliban, including complete air supremacy, the U.S. and its allies have not been able to defeat them strategically after 9 years of combat operations.

Despite the nature of the war in Afghanistan, it being a war against terrorism and the Taleban ideology, the war is largely fought on a conventional basis. The Taleban engage in dirty tactics such as road side and suicide bombings, and the US and NATO use a lot or irregular special forces and special equipment to combat them, but to a large degree the war is conventional and most of the major engagements have involved large scale skirmishes between infantry supported (on the US side) by armour, artillery and air power. The Taleban know they can't take on the US & NATO forces directly as their not as well trained, equiped or supplied, and any time they have tried or tried to lure NATO troops into situations that favour themselves they have been largely trashed or anhilated. What is prolonging the conflict is the political, ethnic and religous rivalries and vendettas that exist and have long existed in Afghanistan and its immediate neigbours, and the influence of other countries namely Pakistan, Iran and some unnamed Arab and Islamic backers and suppliers, as well as the interests of bigger powers such as Russian and China in the region. Also there is a plentifull supply of lunatics and simpletons who belive what their cynical holy men tell them, and prefer the afterlife to their present existance. Its a complicated mess and the US and NATO will eventually pull out when its suits them.

And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees.

No your the one claiming it.

pmulcahy11b

08-14-2010, 01:00 PM

Raellus

08-14-2010, 02:54 PM

To be honest the only progress that they have made over the past 20 years has been to replace the huge numbers of block obsolete aircraft they previously had, with relatively modest numbers of domestic designed aircraft and buy and license build smaller numbers of modern foreign (mainly Russian) aircraft and air defence systems. It has certainly improved China's air capabilities in many ways, and has also closed the technology gap with its major regional neighbours but it has hardly been revolutionary.

Fair enough.

But the US has military and logistic bases across the globe, and many in the Pacific region including Japan and South Korea. Also the US has unmatchable airlift and sealift capabilities, and could bring troops, equipment and supplies at will and China could do little or nothing to prevent it. The US miltary established this capability during WW2 and has been prefecting it ever since.

A fair point but considering the difficulty the U.S. had in supplying its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure that supplying a substantial miltiary force across the world's largest ocean would be as simple as you've implied.

So when you claimed that the US wasn't building for large scale conventional wars, how did you miss Desert Storm and OIF?

I didn't miss anything. The '91 army was essentially the pinnacle of the Cold War army- the army built to take on the Soviets in a tank war in central Europe. The 2003 army was a slimmed down, lean and mean version of the same and the Iraqi armed forces were a shell of their '91 selves. Considering that the Iraqis had lost the bulk of their better armor (not saying much) and nearly their entire airforce during '91, the relatively easy victory in 2003 doesn't really prove a whole lot. Does the U.S. military today have the same number of tanks, aircraft, and ships that it did in '91? No.

Despite the nature of the war in Afghanistan, it being a war against terrorism and the Taleban ideology, the war is largely fought on a conventional basis. The Taleban engage in dirty tactics such as road side and suicide bombings, and the US and NATO use a lot or irregular special forces and special equipment to combat them, but to a large degree the war is conventional and most of the major engagements have involved large scale skirmishes between infantry supported (on the US side) by armour, artillery and air power.

You make my point for me. If the much more advanced U.S. military can't defeat a third-world insurgent army after 9 years, how could it defeat the world's most populous nation?

No your the one claiming it.

Classy. Show me where. Your whole argument is that the Chinese are not a match for the U.S. military, is it not? You can't have it both ways. You've raised some valid points and presented some compelling arguments. You've also made some pretty outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. I'd love to continue this debate but if you're going to be childish then forget it.

RN7

08-15-2010, 02:16 AM

A fair point but considering the difficulty the U.S. had in supplying its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure that supplying a substantial miltiary force across the world's largest ocean would be as simple as you've implied.

Well in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan it world be two Oceans from the West Coast, and they have to supply the troops in the rest of Asian and Europe as well. I never said it world be simple but the US can do it far better than anyone else.

I didn't miss anything. The '91 army was essentially the pinnacle of the Cold War army- the army built to take on the Soviets in a tank war in central Europe. The 2003 army was a slimmed down, lean and mean version of the same and the Iraqi armed forces were a shell of their '91 selves. Considering that the Iraqis had lost the bulk of their better armor (not saying much) and nearly their entire airforce during '91, the relatively easy victory in 2003 doesn't really prove a whole lot.

But it still was a conventional war was it not?

Does the U.S. military today have the same number of tanks, aircraft, and ships that it did in '91? No.

No, but neither does anyone else.

You make my point for me. If the much more advanced U.S. military can't defeat a third-world insurgent army after 9 years, how could it defeat the world's most populous nation?

The fighting is largely conventional the war is not. A war against China which you seem to be banging on about is never going to lead to a US invasion because the US has no reason to invade China.

Classy. Show me where

" And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees."

Your words not mine.

Your whole argument is that the Chinese are not a match for the U.S. military, is it not?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways.

How do you mean? I have argued that the Chinese are no match for US forces, and I think they are not. You are the one who brought up the US invading China not me, as you seem to think that any hypotethical conventional war between the US and China is going to lead to a US invasion of China.

You've raised some valid points and presented some compelling arguments. You've also made some pretty outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. I'd love to continue this debate but if you're going to be childish then forget it.

What outlandish and unsubstantiated claims have I made, when have I been childish and when have I insulted you?

Targan

08-15-2010, 02:22 AM

Play nice, kids.

Mohoender

08-15-2010, 03:07 AM

Play nice, kids.

You right daddy:D

Raellus

08-15-2010, 11:05 AM

"And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees."

Your words not mine.

No, read on. You are claiming that the U.S. can defeat China militarily. You've said so several times.

Your whole argument is that the Chinese are not a match for the U.S. military, is it not?

Yes.

Right there.

How do you mean? I have argued that the Chinese are no match for US forces, and I think they are not. You are the one who brought up the US invading China not me, as you seem to think that any hypotethical conventional war between the US and China is going to lead to a US invasion of China.

If you go back and read what I wrote I said "on home soil or close to it" and "in China's backyard". Taiwan, for example, or, less likely, Korea.

If you would like to qualify under what circumstances the U.S. could beat China militarily, then please do so. My assertion, once again, is that for the U.S. to do so, now but especially in 10 or 20 years, on Asian soil would be improbable (but not impossible).

Cpl. Kalkwarf

08-15-2010, 04:38 PM

No, read on. You are claiming that the U.S. can defeat China militarily. You've said so several times.

Right there.

If you go back and read what I wrote I said "on home soil or close to it" and "in China's backyard". Taiwan, for example, or, less likely, Korea.

If you would like to qualify under what circumstances the U.S. could beat China militarily, then please do so. My assertion, once again, is that for the U.S. to do so, now but especially in 10 or 20 years, on Asian soil would be improbable (but not impossible).

I would have to say that using the strategic nuclear option we would win, but there would not be much left to occupy. If used tactically we could win and even have some usable land. Though either option would probably spark a much larger exchange, and well that would not be cool. Either way I hope we never find out.

jester

08-15-2010, 10:27 PM

There is another option.

Playing on the vastness of China, and the diverse ethnic groups, many who are persecuted and disenfranchised with Bejin.

And then we have their economic situation as well. The riples of this economic situation is having its effects there as well. And thus, alot of low and no skilled people from the countryside moved to the cities to work in factories which many are now closed, or its workers not being paid. There have been riots even. So, playing on this dissastisfaction one could stir alot of internal unrest within China, along with attempts by former nations that have been absorbed rising up, maybe with a little help. Cause enough internal strife, coupled with a good naval blockade because they got alot of their money from selling goods, and they are pretty resource poor. So, if the ships carring raw materials in and manufactured goods out all went to the bottom which is well within the capabilities of the US, they would be severely handicapped. And a land campaign would most likely not be needed, at least by the US.

Webstral

08-15-2010, 10:40 PM

Comparing the performance of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan to the performance of the US military in a conventional war in East Asia against the PRC is not a useful exercise. The Yankees can't claim to be on top because they win an exhibition game against a promising bush league team--which is what the Iraqi Army turned out to be. General Franks did a good job setting policy and using his available resources. However, the contrasts between a Sino-Amiercan conflict and OIF/OEF are more prominent than the comparisons.

We should bear in mind that while carrier-killing missiles probably are directed principally at the US, China has other rivals. Russia is recovering, albeit slowly and unevenly. India is getting strong and rich quickly. A large and heavily mechanized PLA almost certainly is intended for action against either of these rivals, not the US. Weapons that are serviceable against the USN are even more serviceable against the Russian Pacific Fleet and the Indian Navy. The same goes for the PLAAF. I think it's good politics for the Chinese leadership to put on a good show of being able to bloody the nose of the US Navy, but in the end the real rivals are in Asia. Since messing with the US means foreswearing the flow of raw materials across the various oceans easily interdicted by the USN, the Chinese know that sinking a US carrier is a worse-case option, not a most-likely option.

As an example, China recently signed a trade agreement with Brazil. Sino-Brazilian trade operates under the guns, so to speak, of the USN. Even if the Russians were of a mind to mess with this, they would end up fighting the convoy escorts of the Western powers. Probably, this isn't worth it. China's seaborne trade depends on American goodwill, new missiles notwithstanding. Until the balance of power at sea changes significantly, this fact will be far more salient than the ability of a new missile to hit a US carrier.

Webstral

RN7

08-15-2010, 11:09 PM

No, read on. You are claiming that the U.S. can defeat China militarily. You've said so several times.

Yes they could, and I'll say it again, they could.

If you go back and read what I wrote I said "on home soil or close to it" and "in China's backyard". Taiwan, for example, or, less likely, Korea.

Well what is the definition of China's backyard? Do you mean mainland China, do you mean countries neighbouring or near China, or do you mean just the sea's and airspace around China (the Yellow Sea and East and South China Sea's), or do you mean further out into the Pacific.

If you would like to qualify under what circumstances the U.S. could beat China militarily, then please do so. My assertion, once again, is that for the U.S. to do so, now but especially in 10 or 20 years, on Asian soil would be improbable (but not impossible).

Well they would have to go to war first, and unless China actually attacked American forces this is unlikely. However American forces could be drawn into an escalated conflict with China if it was compelled to back a major ally in a dispute with China, such as Taiwan, Korea or a territorial dispute in the sea's around China. Taiwan or a territorial waters dispute is the most likely senario, and a full scale Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely to lead to a voilent American reaction. However China might begin a campaign of air and naval harassment of another countries shipping or even military forces which might drag America in, and the development and outcome of such a war would depend on the reaction of America.

If America decided to engage Chinese forces, such a conflict is likely to only involve air and naval forces, and possibly Chinese long ranged surface-to-air missiles launched from China, unless America attacked mainland China which would widen the scope of the war. It would start of with probing action by American and Chinese air and naval forces as they size each other up. It could escalate to skirmishes where America is likely to restrain or limit the actions of its air and naval forces to only react in self-defence. However the successfull sinking a US Navy warship would provoke a major American response.

Hypothetically if America decided to go full throttle after China then your looking at a US mobilisation on at least the scale of the Gulf War, with a major emphasis on air and naval power.

On the naval front were not talking about just a carrier battle group or two, but the majority of the Third, Fifth, Seventh Fleets, and elements of the other fleets as well. China's coastline would be blockaded by up to half of the USN operational SSN fleet. At least half a dozen carrier battle groups could be deployed within striking range of the Chinese mainland, heavily defended by heavily armed USN escorts with TLAM capabilities and other US land based air defence assets.

On the air front the build up of US air assets would be escalated. USAF, USN and USMC combat, reconnaisance and airlift assets from across CONUS, Europe and the Middle East are going to be deployed to US and allied air bases from the West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, Japan, S. Korea, Guam, Diego Gargia, the Middle East and possibly Taiwan and other Asian countries. The full spectrum of US airpower is going to be deployed and on stand by here, everything from the B-2 to the F-22.

Without even taking into account the mobilisation of US Army and Marine forces which can be deployed around the world in numbers that no other country can match, or the air, sea and land based US strategic nuclear deterent, your looking at up to 100 major warships and submarines, and probably at least 1,000 frontline combat aircraft facing China.

Faced with this the Chinese are likely to find away out of the conflict or duke it out with America. If they choose the latter their air defence network and non-nuclear strike capabilities that could obstruct or potentially harm American forces will be quickly targeted and eliminated. If the Chinese continue to fight their navy and airforce will be targeted. After about a month China won't have much of an airforce or navy left and its economy would be ruined, while the US will be considering its next option. If during such a conflict China attempted to go nuclear America's response would be overwhelming and deadly to China.

Basically its a no win situation for China. In 10 ot 20 years time China will have improved its capabilities but so will America and other countries, and even during the height of the Cold War and America's forces lowest point in the mid-1970's after the withdrawal from Vietnam, America never realy lost its supremacy over the Soviet Union in the air. The Chinese are going to have to heavily develop and improve their air defence and air combat assets to even level the playing field even in their own backyard, and massively expand their naval capabilities to take on the US Navy in the western Pacific.

Mohoender

08-16-2010, 01:27 AM

There is another option.

Playing on the vastness of China, and the diverse ethnic groups, many who are persecuted and disenfranchised with Bejin.

Not false but not entirely true either. These disatisfied groups will be mainly Tibetans and Ouighours. Then, unrest will occur mainly in western china. I'm not sure it would last long. With China not needing to show a kind face to the world, it could rely on genocide with little regret and end it quite fast.

About economical unrest, it could indeed be a problem for China but it will entirely depend on their political choices. If the West stop buying goods in China, China simply has to switch it's economy to fuel its domestic market.

jester

08-16-2010, 04:46 AM

Mo;

China is having alot of small seperatists groups in the West, and some muslim terrorist activity too. Granted the Chinese would be too bashful about moving into India or Pakistan or other countries to deal with the folks giving them a hard time, but that could be politicaly damaging, as well as bringing the force of the country they just invaded.

As for China and Comerce, I was actauly thinking stopping major commerce ie, raw materials comming in and manufactured goods going out by means of submarine, air, surface ships and anti shipping missiles.

And of course with Chinas raising unemployed ranks of low and no skilled workers, well alot of dissatisfaction can be fostered. Cripple them economicaly, hit them with several small militant groups and back one or two or three of the larger revolutionary groups again encourafging their displeasure with Bejin.

Mohoender

08-16-2010, 10:58 AM

Jester

I like your ideas and see them as perfectly plausible. However, depending on the level of isolation for China, it can be extremely different.

If Russia doesn't close commercial relations with China, things can turn a very different way. The groups you are talking about can start to have a very had time.

Commercialy, the situation can become more complex. Russia can provide China with more than enough raw materials in exchange for a wide variety of industrial goods (what Russia lacks). Then, with enough raw materials to keep its industry working, China could not face so much unrest and under wise leadership, it can chose to turn to its own population to sell a majority of its products.

Then, I don't think that western economy would collapse (also it could). It would, however, face a crisis that could be very long and damaging and need time to recover. As we just seen, stock exchange can make the entire western world go down and we have done very little (to these days) to correct this.

jester

08-16-2010, 12:47 PM

Oh, I do not advocate that any of those ideas by themselves would cause them terrible harm. But,with all of them combined it would. What I am more working with, is the idea of causing them rebelling within their boarders. <It already exists the further one gets from Bejin.>

As for them turning inward for inner markets, true, but then again, this is what I see with China today. A vast chasm between the rich who live lives of luxury. And the poor who still live in the countryside who don't even have electricity. It exists! And yes they had a growning middle class of the skilled labor, but these folks are now suffering as a result of the worlds economic crisis because China put most of its domestic energy into industrialization and manufacturing.

And, I just do not see Russia being as big a market for China alone that it will keep them from going bankrupt if a blockade were to be put in place. And N. Korea and Cuba wouldn't do it either. They would of course turn to the 3rd World. But, if a blockade were to be made of China then assuming Russia were on freindly terms, they could transit through Russia, into the Baltic and Black Sea ports and Arctic, but those ports are all landlocked with limited access and you would have to travel the expanse of Asia and Europe to get them to market. But, they could find markets in the 3rd World, some Asian, Africa for sure and some S. American. And I do not doubt that many European and other nations would stab the US in the back and conduct under the table trade deals with China much like they have with Iran, Iraq and A-Stan. <In my view those nations could do with a little thermo nuclear renovations.>

And another aspect is, how much does China have invested in the US and areas that are within the US's sphere of influence? All of those assets and facilities get siezed immediatly and used for the war effort <thus they are eliminated as a bargaining chip or reparation once hostilities are ended.>

Mohoender

08-17-2010, 01:40 AM

And I like the idea of a nice scenario coming out of this. Don't advocate myself.:) I'll include some of our thinking to my homegrown t2k.

pmulcahy11b

08-17-2010, 01:56 AM

And I like the idea of a nice scenario coming out of this. Don't advocate myself.:) I'll include some of our thinking to my homegrown t2k.

It seems this is more a T2K13 thing than a T2K thing, though.

jester

08-17-2010, 02:26 AM

Heck, I've written several scenarios. In my home rules timeline I had China acting the oportunist and jumping in a landgrab of Taiwan while the US was buising fighting in the Middle East and Europe and their fleets scattered across the glob or on the bottom of the ocean or down for lack of spares.

I even came up with an idea of a couple Chinese variants of Division de Cuba, and well, similiar ideas that have been put in the 2013 variant....things, ideas I posted back in 01 hmmmmm :rolleyes:

I incorportated Chinise infiltrations into the coastal cities China towns, operations on the former Long Beach Naval Station <leased to the Chinese under Clinton> several container ships with Chinese troops and supplies landing, and siezing the port areas coupled with the sleepers in the Chinatowns, and thus paralyzing the ports and logistics system of the Pacific Coast of N. America.

Further, I let the deal with the Chinese and Panama Canal go through so there is a presence there as well.

I also wrote another scenario years ago about a US/Free Chinese/Taiwanese landing on mainland China.

A token force of US forces, with Taiwanese, Ex Pat Chinese from N. America and the Commonwealth nationes, making up a few brigades, A division or two of Taiwanese, and a Free China Army, as I have China in a multiple party civil war, much like a great deal of their modern history. A force going through the countryside liberating them, which is for psychological purposes, to the people back home, to the enemy Chinese that they are not beyond being invaded, and to the FREE CHINA forces and the population that there is a force outside who will support them in ousting the communist regime. <Of course these people will have been prepared prior with propoganda, agents and SF types wooing the locals over to the NATO cause.> I even made a Kalisz type scenario with that one.

Then another scenario was full on commando operation. The PCs mission to go in and with other teams, make their way to the great damn they built and blow it. A little bit of Force 10 From Navarone, but I also had some ideas from Operation Eagle Claw, the rescue attempt by Delta Force to rescue the embassy personel in Iran. that would be an awesome game to play would it not? Get in, get to the locatiom, conduct the mission? Or not, and then if you are able make your getaway, all across one of the largest nations in the world after you <if you were successful> have devestated an entire region.

So, yeah, I have come up with a few ideas over the years.