OT: China's new carrier

[dragoon500ly]

Well if any one has missed this...

The PRC has moved their former Russian Kiev-class carrier from the status of floating casino to major naval combatant (like nobody saw that one coming).

The news site that I saw this report on talked about the balance of power shifting from the US to the PRC and how the PRC would be able to contest control of the Pacific.

I was left sitting going WTF?

Now I am a cav trooper and any intrest I have in the Navy is strictly from a war-gaming stand point (Harpoon Rules!!!). But the Chinese are not going to be able to dispute control of the Pacific anytime soon, at least not with their latest toy.

The Kiev's were not considered to be very effective aircraft carriers, their major claim was the very heavy SSM, SAM armament that they carried. This heavy missile armament meant that they couldn't carry a large air group, they could not carry the fuel for extensive operations by the air group and they did not have the magazine space to support the air group. Even if the Chinese scrap the missile armament, it is believed that the carrier could not support more than 30-40 aircraft at the most (a typical US carrier can field about 85 aircraft).

There is one other point that the media has missed. China didn't build the carrier. They have no sisters under construction in any shipyard. It appears that this will be the only carrier that they will have for quite some time.

The USN, at the peak of the Cold War fielded 15 carriers, of which at least 5 were in port for minor repairs or undergoing major maintenance. A naval officer in my office laughs about this, stating that the Chinese carrier would most likely spend as much as 6-7 months of each year, in port. And since it is already an older ship, they may get as much as a dozen years of service out of her.

The only nations that are really threatned by the new Chinese ship are the Phillipines, Vietnam and Indonesia, all of whom are disupting fishing rights and oil drilling with the PRC. This will most likely result in the USN deploying 1-2 SSNs into the area whenever the carrier sails, and may see a more frequent deployment of a US carrier task group into the region.

The greatest threat that the US is facing from the Chinese (at least in a naval sort of way) is the deployment of new anti-ship missiles.

Still, reporters are proclaiming that the launching of this carrier means the end of US control of the Pacific...... :rolleyes:

[ShadoWarrior]

Still, reporters are proclaiming that the launching of this carrier means the end of US control of the Pacific
Of course they are. Because if the corporate-lackey media doesn't raise enough of a fuss then when the calls start coming in (soon) for the US to spend several hundred billion more on a new arms race and naval build-up no one will take it seriously enough to get the bills passed through Congress, despite however much lobbying the US military-industrial-politico axis does.

[Tegyrius]

The country that needs to be taking China's ongoing naval buildup very seriously is India.

- C.

[Panther Al]

I've kept a close eye on the ChiCom CV: This one really doesn't worry people in itself: Everyone seems to agree that its purpose in life is as a training platform more than a combat ship. Which doesn't mean that they won't use it for showing the flag exercises. Now, as far as more of them being made: There is no doubt that they are going blue water in a big way: but that's 15 years in the future.

And yes. India sees this, and they are going ape as you might expect. I can't recall off hand details, but they are also looking at seriously beefing up the blue water aspects of the Indian Fleet.

[95th Rifleman]

I've kept a close eye on the ChiCom CV: This one really doesn't worry people in itself: Everyone seems to agree that its purpose in life is as a training platform more than a combat ship. Which doesn't mean that they won't use it for showing the flag exercises. Now, as far as more of them being made: There is no doubt that they are going blue water in a big way: but that's 15 years in the future.

And yes. India sees this, and they are going ape as you might expect. I can't recall off hand details, but they are also looking at seriously beefing up the blue water aspects of the Indian Fleet.

India are going through their own modernisation with some pretty sexy toys. Thier Pars are using the new Israeli TAR-21 assault rifle and their airforce is in a joint program with Russia to build the SU-50 which will be a direct rival to the American YF-22 and JSF aircraft.

Personaly I'm more interested in keeping an eye on India. It won't be the forst time a country pulls a fast one while eyes are focused on an apparently greater threat elsewhere in the region.

[RN7]

China has been planning to put carriers into their fleet for a long time, probably since the mid-1980's, and have brought four carriers in various states of operationality and under various guises; The Australian Melbourne, two ex-Soviet Kiev's and the incomplete Soviet Varyag, a sister ship to the Russian Kuznetsov. The Varyag (Shi Lang) would represent the best that China could hope to put out into the Pacific, and it would be little more than a flag shower as it or the Chinese navy would be seriously outclassed by a US navy carrier battle group, and the US navy currently has 11 carriers in service, excluding new builds, carriers in the reserve and the amphibous assault carriers.

The reporters on the website you read probably don't have a clue about the capability of Chinese owned aircraft carriers in comparison to US carriers.

However China does have plans to build its own carriers. Two carriers of similar dimensions to the Varyag are supposedly being planned or even building at the moment, and there is even a report that China plans to build two Type 089 nuclear powered carriers. The reliability and believability of all this is questionable, although it is likely that China does plan to eventually build its own carriers in the future.

[dragoon500ly]

I've been talking with a couple of the naval officers in my office and I know that a lot of what is going on can't be talked about due to security, but this is the opinion of two naval aviators and a sub-driver....

China wants to build a blue water navy. The on-going disputes over the Spratley Islands (and yes my spell kecker ain't working this early!) as well as a desire to be in a position to apply more pressure on Taiwan seem to be their major objectives. The aviators believe that they want to build a fleet with 3-5 medium-sized carriers sometime within the next decade or two. The smaller carriers will give them a decent capability in their area of intrest while not costing as much as a US carrier. They were most intrested in the composition of the Chinese air groups since this will hint as to the carriers role; air-defense of the fleet, anti-submarine or strike.

The sub-driver wasn't too worried about it. His opinion is that PACFLT will simply keep 1-2 SSNs in the area to monitor the situation. After all, surface targets are surface targets. The melee in the lunchroom was on!

None of the people I've talked with were very concerned about a Chinese-Indian naval build-up. Both countries simply don't have the auxiliaries to support major fleet operations in each other's area. Perhaps escalations over Tibet, maybe an accident with fighters, but the chance of a naval confrontation was consider to be remote.

Like the old saying goes, amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics. The general opinion is that when the Chinese start building auxiliaries then they will become more of a threat.

[ShadoWarrior]

Auxiliaries don't take nearly as long to build as warships, and could be created out of merchant hulls if necessary. And the Chinese have plenty of merchant hulls they could quickly convert.

[dragoon500ly]

And that is true. The area of special concern are oilers. Naval oilers are equipped to refuel warships alongside. This does require special equipment and those ships with this equipment are tracked.

Oilers can also refuel astern, this doesn't require any special equipment, after all, you simply pass a hose along a rope line. But it is slow and is often prone to breakage. Again, a naval oiler has the additional equipment needed to refuel in all three positions (abeam and astern).

Its the amount of time needed to convert that seems to be most up in the air. If the hull of the merchantman was strengthed to support derricks, then the equipment can be mounted in as little as four days. If it doesn't have the support structure in place, then it can take longer, as much as two weeks, to complete the conversion.

Undersea replinishment is a bit more complex than simply pulling alongside and opening up the cargo hatches. A lot of modern merchantmen simply don't have the derricks to unload themselves any more, being little more than carriers of bulk material or container ships.

[ShadoWarrior]

Since strengthening the hull of a ship is not visible to satellite surveillance, and adding derricks probably wouldn't require drydocking the ship, we probably wouldn't know about it until the ship sailed, unless we got lucky and spotted the mod work during those few days. Which is doubtful, as the Chinese have a lot of docks for our satellites to observe (and the humans who have to study the pics). Basically, the Chinese can easily create the required logistics train whenever they get the warships needed to project a blue water threat.

I'd be more concerned about tracking Chinese ASW capabilities than tracking their logistics capabilities. I doubt that the Chicoms have ignored the lessons from WW2 and what the US did to Japan.

[dragoon500ly]

You wouldn't need to drydock a ship in order to convert it to an auxiliary role. It would require the services of a shipyard, however. As to if the US monitors their shipyards. I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to place a small wager that the US does keep an eye on their shipyards.

China is not near as vulnerable to submarine warfare as Japan is (was). Taking the time to flip through a copy of Combat Fleets of the World, China is still a navy intended for coastal defense. Yes they are building up blue-water units, but it will be several years before China reaches a level where they can be a serious player in the Pacific.

Having said that, its the Chinese development of extended-range anti-ship missiles that worries the USN. The development of the so-called anti-carrier ballistic missile can only be seen as a direct threat against PACFLT. This is one of the reason's behind the USN's new intrest in anti-missile defense (at least until some idiot politicain decides to kill the program and build another eight-lane highway to nowhere in his district).

A lot of the intrest right now is concerning the possible air group mix of their new toy. Will it be a VTOL/STOL or pure rotor or fixed wing? The composition of their air group will be a key indicator of just what mission is intended for their carrier.

Well, its time to fire up the ole BBQ and herd the heathens outside and let them expend energy in chasing each other around the yard. Enjoy your Sunday!

[atiff]

Wait, don't forget this one!

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Shanghai,+China&ll=31.10508,121.014479&spn=0.002398,0.005284&t=h&z=18
(set to 'Satellite' image)

http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm

I went there last year, although no time to go 'on board'. Kinda fun.

[ShadoWarrior]

Dragoon, I think you misunderstood my comment regarding Chicom ASW, because I didn't write it very clearly. Sorry. It has little to do with China being vulnerable economically as they Japanese were/are. It's about how the Chinese are vulnerable to our SSNs killing their blue water assets before they get to use them. In WW2 US subs ranged far ahead of the fleets taking shots at anything of value. In any shooting war, US SSNs wouldn't just be guarding CBGs, there would also be quite a few of them out by themselves hunting and killing the enemy. The US worries about protecting the CBGs from Chicom ship-killing missiles. The Chicoms in turn worry about protecting their ships from US subs. Hence when (not if) the Chicoms ramp up building ASW assets then we need to really worry. CBGs are a force-projection tool. But subs are primarily for sea-denial. And in a war it's at least as important (and arguably more important) to deny the enemy use of the sea than to project friendly force.

[RN7]

Here is the Varyag at Dalian.

[headquarters]

The Chinese are expanding in to Africa and Asia. They will eventually need capacity for force projection acroos the oceans. But I agree with those here who point out that the USN is just to far ahead of all others to be in any serious peril for the forseeable future. I guess we could try to guesstimate when a serious contender for the naval supremacy might come along - and who that might be.

China could have a shot in the future if their economy soars and the US keeps dragging on. I have little doubt that the expertise to build such vessel would be available to thr Chinese should they put effort into that field.

But I dont see how any other navy or even any other alliance of navies could actually best the USN. Inflict terrible losses - maybe. But win the war at sea? I dont see it in a hundred years.

[simonmark6]

Mind you, my ancestors were saying that about this time in the last century...

[95th Rifleman]

Mind you, my ancestors were saying that about this time in the last century...

That's a very good point.

Look at the Japanese, they went from nothing to a major, modern fleet in a relatively short time. The Russians got knocked for six by that little surprise.

[adimar]

But I dont see how any other navy or even any other alliance of navies could actually best the USN. Inflict terrible losses - maybe. But win the war at sea? I dont see it in a hundred years.A relevant comparison might be Tirpitz' Risk theory. Tirpitz was a pre-WW1 German naval captain who suggested that in-order to match Great Britain's power Germany didn't have to invest in a bigger/more powerful navy. All German had to do was to create a navy big enough so that the cost of conflict between the navies would cripple the British navy. Such a parity results in a situation where even if Britain wins the war between the navies, the damage done to it's navy would severely degrade it's power projection capabilities to the point where it would risk the empire.
I think the similarities are obvious.

Adi

[RN7]

A relevant comparison might be Tirpitz' Risk theory. Tirpitz was a pre-WW1 German naval captain who suggested that in-order to match Great Britain's power Germany didn't have to invest in a bigger/more powerful navy. All German had to do was to create a navy big enough so that the cost of conflict between the navies would cripple the British navy. Such a parity results in a situation where even if Britain wins the war between the navies, the damage done to it's navy would severely degrade it's power projection capabilities to the point where it would risk the empire.
I think the similarities are obvious.

Adi


A good analogy, certainly the naval expansion of China vs America bares some similarities with the position of Germany vs Britain a hundred years or more ago, and China as a land power like Germany competing with a naval power like America and Britain is worth noting.

However the major draw back would be the level of military technology in both cases. Germany never achieved naval parity with Britain before or during WW1, with its fleet being at best 60% the size of the Royal Navy as British naval ship building capacity was too great for them to match. After Jutland the German High seas fleet never bothered to take on the Royal Navy again. But German naval technology was certainly able to match Britain's, and its dreadnought fleet was arguably more advanced with better machinery, gun sights etc. China on the other hand is not any where near challenging American naval technology. Despite the propaganda and knee jerk reports of its growing naval power, China can't build an aircraft carrier on its own despite 30 years of trying, and its nuclear submarine programme is reliant on Russian assistance.

They are trying however, and I think Peking is happy to embark on a dissemination policy about its naval/military/strategic projects to worry its neighbours in Asia and keep America on its toes. I bet the Pentagon just loves all of this as it justifies its defence spending and funding for new projects.

[Raellus]

The PRC has moved their former Russian Kiev-class carrier from the status of floating casino to major naval combatant (like nobody saw that one coming).


The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

[RN7]

Chinese Aircraft Carriers

HMAS Melbourne
British built light aircraft carrier, demilitarised and sold by Australia to China in 1985. Studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers, flight deck reportedly removed or reproduced for the secret training of Chinese Navy pilots in carrier flight operations. Carrier was rumored to have not been broken up until 2002.

Kiev & Minsk
Soviet built hybrid aircraft carrier/missile cruiser. Kiev demilitarised in 1993 and sold to China in 1996 as a theme parked ship. Minsk demilitarised in 1993 and sold to South Korea in 1995, and later sold on to China as a theme parked ship. Status of both ships are unknown other than being used as museum attractions, but both ships are likely to have been intensively studied by Chinese naval engineers but are not likely to be ever be operational again.

Varyag
Soviet built sister of Russian Kuznetsov. Construction of ship stopped in Ukraine 1992 when 70% complete, and ship sold in 1998 to China. Considered highly likely that China is preparing the Varyag (Renamed Shi Lang) for commission as China’s first aircraft carrier. Extensive modification of ship has been observed since 2006, and is reportedly currently been fitted out with sensors, radars and defensive weapons at Dalian, and the ship has been observed beginning to run power. Undetermined Russian assistance is likely. Su-33 carrier based fighters and Ka-31 early warning helicopters have been sought or bought from Russia, while the J-15 carrier based fighter which is considered a Chinese knock off of the Su-33 is being developed by China. A concrete land based flight deck has been built for training carrier pilots while China has approached the Brazilian navy for the use of its aircraft carrier for training.

Future Chinese Carriers
Reportedly China plans to start building two Type 089 (Shi Lang Class) carriers by 2015, probably based upon the Varyag design, and another two nuclear powered carrier in 2020.

Good site about the Varyag.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm

Chinese Nuclear Submarines

Type 091 Class (1974-Present)
Numbers: 5 built, 3 still in service
Tonnage: 4,500-5,500
Speed: 25kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-802 A/S missile, mines

Type 092 Class (1981-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 1 still in service
Tonnage: 6,500-7,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-1A SLBMs

Type 093 Class (2002-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 6-8 planned
Tonnage: 6,000-7,000
Speed: 35kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-803 A/S missile, mines

Type 094 Class (2010-Present) (Believed to have incorporated Russian technology)
Numbers: 2 building, 5 planned
Tonnage: 8,000-9,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-2SLBMs (16-24 on Type 2/3)

Type 095 Class (2015)
Numbers: 5 planned
Tonnage: Unknown
Speed: Unknown
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, HY-5 A/S missile, mines

Chinese Submarine Launched Missiles

C-802 Anti-ship missile (Range: 180km)
C-803 Anti-ship missile (Range: 200km)
HY-5 Anti-ship missile (Range: 300-500km)
JL-1A SLBM (Range: 2,500km, 200-300kt)
JL-2 SLBM (Range: 8,600km, 250kt single or MIRV (up to 10 MIRV on Mod II variant))

[95th Rifleman]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

All this talk of China being behind in tech is a bit pointless. If China decided to build up properly they could put out huge numbers of, admittedly inferior, shps and aircraft and swamp American defenses. For the moment they are cntent to just exchange sabre rattles.

[adimar]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.Don't confuse land & blue water warfare. The major difference between the two is that you can't really hide is open ocean warfare. At least you can't hide without a major technological edge. If you want to compare land and sea than change the land terrain to a flat rocky plain where a guerrilla force can't strike & vanish.
Since the last couple of wars were anti insurgent actions people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

These are my 1.99 cents
Adi

[95th Rifleman]

people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.



This kind of thinking is daft, arrogant and the reason America lost Vietnam and why Russia lost in Afghanistan.

"We didn't lose because our tactics where out-dated, our technology was developed for an entirely different battlefield and our logistics are strecthed to breaking point. No we lost because we are the good guys and play by the rules and the other guy hides behind civvies, we couldn't possibly lose if they played fair."

Bit of a reality check, the Russians didn't care how many civilians the taliban hid behind, they blew them all up and let God do the counting and the Russians STILL lost.

people refuse to actualy learn the lessons of history, they just make up excuses and keep fighting the last war till they get blown to hell and are forced (like the Germans post-WW1) to re-write the rulebook.

Technology doesn't mean crap against numbers, even in blue water navies. WW1 era bi-planes where responsible for sinking one of the most advanced and modern warships built in WW2 (the Bismark). America won WW2 because they could put 6 carriers to sea for every one the Japanese had. It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

Technology can only get you so far, eventualy the nmbers game decides the outcome. The bigger the scale, the more powerful numbers become. Ony in very small actions does quality overcome quantity, it's the reason spec ops forces operate in small teams.

[dragoon500ly]

The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

Sorry, I should have made listed all of the news report, which claimed that the PRC was activating the floating Kiev-class casino as well as the Varyag. What can I say, cold beer and BBQ.....

[ShadoWarrior]

It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.
This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

[Legbreaker]

I believe it may be worth pointing out that the US economy is, well, basically in the toilet. Unless something BIG happens soon, the US may not be able to maintain the navy they have now, let alone build replacement ships in 20 years.
Meanwhile, China seems to be booming. 20 years from now they may well have the money, the technology and skills to build a seriously decent fleet.
Maybe neither of those things will happen, but maybe they will. Better to worry about the possibility now and work out some contingencies than place head in sand and hope.
This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

[ShadoWarrior]

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.
The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

[95th Rifleman]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

People do tend to forget that WW2 started before America got into it. America had to play catch-up and it was only America's vast industrial base and relatively untouched economy that allowed it to do so. It also helped that Japan wiped out almost all the big gun battleships and forced America to adapt and in so doing master carrier warfare. Had the japanese sent their final wave and destroyed the US pacific carriers then the war would of had a much different outcome.

In the end America won WW2 with numbers, not quality. In Europe they simply sent in so many Shermans at the wehrmacht till the Germans simply ran out of resources. it was the same in the pacific, the Americans mass-produced simple, effective designs for destroyers and carriers and simply swamped the Japanese who could not replace losses.

In the 21st century it is America who has the superior tech but numericly inferior forces and the economic climate is making that situation worse every year. At the risk of coming across as anti-American, there has been an arrogant, self-imposed blindness on the part of the USA over the past few decades, especialy after the fall of communism. Many in America consider that they where victorious in the cold war and that it validates their doctrine. The truth is the Russians ran out of money before America did, the cold war crippled them economicly. America risks going into a second cold war with China and this time it will be America that loses out.

The cold truth is that America has become over-reliant on it's military technology and has become dangerously arrogant, underestimating her potential rivals. My own country made this mistake and we went from having the world's most powerful naval empire to the state we find ourselves in today.

[ShadoWarrior]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
"Most" ships, true. But the link that was posted proves what I said about the US having it on some ships (5) prior to the US being attacked. And as early as 1938 on two ships. The Japanese, OTOH, had been on a war footing for years prior to PH and had not made any appreciable implementation of radar into their fleet. Despite having access to German technology, and knowing that radar was widespread in the British navy (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Radar.htm).


As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.
Appropriate to ignore the UK Royal Navy, which had the most widespread usage of radar at the time Japan declared war on the UK and the US?

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).
The Japanese had had access to German radar technology. They chose not to do much with it.

The real point is that 95th Rifleman asserted that the Japanese had the most "modern" fleet in the world. They had the newest ships, but using the term "modern" is subject to some serious dispute, as it very much depends on what factors one chooses when defining "modern".

[ShadoWarrior]

In the 21st century it is America who has the superior tech but numericly inferior forces and the economic climate is making that situation worse every year. At the risk of coming across as anti-American, there has been an arrogant, self-imposed blindness on the part of the USA over the past few decades, especialy after the fall of communism. Many in America consider that they where victorious in the cold war and that it validates their doctrine. The truth is the Russians ran out of money before America did, the cold war crippled them economicly. America risks going into a second cold war with China and this time it will be America that loses out.

The cold truth is that America has become over-reliant on it's military technology and has become dangerously arrogant, underestimating her potential rivals. My own country made this mistake and we went from having the world's most powerful naval empire to the state we find ourselves in today.
Yep, all true.

[95th Rifleman]

"Most" ships, true. But the link that was posted proves what I said about the US having it on some ships (5) prior to the US being attacked. And as early as 1938 on two ships. The Japanese, OTOH, had been on a war footing for years prior to PH and had not made any appreciable implementation of radar into their fleet. Despite having access to German technology, and knowing that radar was widespread in the British navy (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Radar.htm).



Appropriate to ignore the UK Royal Navy, which had the most widespread usage of radar at the time Japan declared war on the UK and the US?


The Japanese had had access to German radar technology. They chose not to do much with it.

The real point is that you asserted that the Japanese had the most "modern" fleet in the world. They had the newest ships, but using the term "modern" is subject to some serious dispute, as it very much depends on what factors one chooses when defining "modern".

How many of those radar battlewagons where sunk at pearl?

Arguably radar was the ONLY advantage the Americans had during the first half of the war. Japan had superior carriers, superior carrier aircraft and their battlewagons where bigger and superior to anything the American fleet could boast. their cruisers where also superior, the only real advantage America had was in her escorts. US submarines where nothing less than a joke in the early stages of the war as they didn't have any torpedos worth a damn.

In an open battlewagon to battlewagon engagement the American fleet would never of stood a chance. Ironicly by sinking the big guns at pearl, Japan removed her best chance of winning a decisive engagement against the US fleet in open water. carrirs where only beginning to be understood and developed by the US admiralty, losing their battleships forced American admirals to rely on their carriers and develp them into war winning weapons later in the campaighn.

There is no way to get out of the fact that it was numerical superiority in carriers and aircraft that beat the Japanese, not quality.

[95th Rifleman]

On the subject of carriers, it was a bloody miracle that the Germans never really got into the idea. German carrier fleets couldof decimated the Royal navy and would of blockaded the UK ina way that the U-boats could never of acheived.

[ShadoWarrior]

How many of those radar battlewagons where sunk at pearl?
Most.

Arguably radar was the ONLY advantage the Americans had during the first half of the war.
That, and having broken the Japanese naval ciphers. Both of which led directly to the Japanese losing at Midway to the inferior American ships.

Japan had superior carriersNot really. They just a lot more of them.

superior carrier aircraft and their battlewagons where bigger and superior to anything the American fleet could boast. their cruisers where also superior, the only real advantage America had was in her escorts. US submarines where nothing less than a joke in the early stages of the war as they didn't have any torpedos worth a damn.

In an open battlewagon to battlewagon engagement the American fleet would never of stood a chance. Ironicly by sinking the big guns at pearl, Japan removed her best chance of winning a decisive engagement against the US fleet in open water. carrirs where only beginning to be understood and developed by the US admiralty, losing their battleships forced American admirals to rely on their carriers and develp them into war winning weapons later in the campaighn.
All true. See my point above regarding Midway.

There is no way to get out of the fact that it was numerical superiority in carriers and aircraft that beat the Japanese, not quality.
This is not an accurate reflection of what happened. The US was kicking Japanese butt long before the US achieved numerical superiority. Numerical superiority allowed the US to shorten the war, but the Japanese would have lost it even had the US fleet never surpassed the Japanese fleet in numbers. The simple fact is that the Japanese did not have the logistics to maintain their fleet and the US developed superior aircraft in 1942, which even in inferior numbers would have been enough to crush the Japanese fleet. The Japanese couldn't replace their losses at the rate they were suffering them, even before the US swamped them with numbers.

[Legbreaker]

"Most" ships, true. But the link that was posted proves what I said about the US having it on some ships (5) prior to the US being attacked. And as early as 1938 on two ships. The Japanese, OTOH, had been on a war footing for years prior to PH and had not made any appreciable implementation of radar into their fleet. Despite having access to German technology, and knowing that radar was widespread in the British navy (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Radar.htm).
The Japanese weren't facing anything like the best the UK had to offer what with the UK itself struggling to survive back in Europe. Post Singapore, the UK no longer had any significant ability to penetrate into the Pacific either - that ocean was effectively controlled by the Japanese.

Appropriate to ignore the UK Royal Navy, which had the most widespread usage of radar at the time Japan declared war on the UK and the US?
Given that Singapore fell VERY soon after the declaration of war (only about 2 months), it is definitely worth discounting the UK naval forces when discussing Japanese naval capabilities - Japan just wasn't likely to meet the UK in battle.
The Japanese had had access to German radar technology. They chose not to do much with it.
The Germans themselves didn't really see how much of a game changer it could be. Why would the Japanese have been any different given that they were effectively uncontested rulers of pretty much half the world?

The real point is that 95th Rifleman asserted that the Japanese had the most "modern" fleet in the world. They had the newest ships, but using the term "modern" is subject to some serious dispute, as it very much depends on what factors one chooses when defining "modern".
Yes it is. The Japanese ships were modern by the standards of the time. A few short years later at the end of the war though and they were hopelessly outclassed. But that's not just technology, but in crew quality, especially aircrew. By the latter stages of the war, they'd been reduced from an extremely professional and capable force to having to resort to suicide attacks by pilots who barely knew how to take off (landing in many cases was not taught at all).

Anyway, getting back to the topic, China, should it so wish, could have a naval force at least the equal of any other on the planet in relatively short order and there's really not much anyone can do about it. At the moment however they don't appear to be all that interested in projecting power much beyond their borders so it's unlikely we'll be seeing any US style super carriers any time soon - there's just no real requirement/justification for them.

[Raellus]

By the latter stages of the war, they'd been reduced from an extremely professional and capable force to having to resort to suicide attacks by pilots who barely knew how to take off (landing in many cases was not taught at all).


That highlighted bit is a myth, BTW.

[ShadoWarrior]

The Germans themselves didn't really see how much of a game changer it could be.
If the Germans didn't see how much of a game changer radar was, then how do you explain why the Bismark had both sea and air search radars, and a better integrated fire control system than those on the Brit battlewagons it faced off against, allowing for both a more accurate and higher rate of fire?

[dragoon500ly]

There was a question earlier about how good the PRC's ASW capability is. It is primarily based on older Soviet-era sonar systems as well as a high percentage of western systems, primarily French.

The sub-driver in my office is of the opinion that the older systems can be easily defeated. Its the newer systems that concern him. Or as he stated, "its even money."

[RN7]

If the Germans didn't see how much of a game changer radar was, then how do you explain why the Bismark had both sea and air search radars, and a better integrated fire control system than those on the Brit battlewagons it faced off against, allowing for both a more accurate and higher rate of fire?

Its true the Bismarck was a fine battleship, probably the most powerful in the world at the time of its sinking in 1941, but whereas Britain and America had abided by the terms of the naval washington Treaty before and up to WW2, Germany and Japan had consistantly cheated, giving their capitol ships and even cruisers some advantage over them two main Western naval powers Britain and America.

Bismarck did indeed have radars, 3 x FuMo23 and FuMO21 radars, and German rangefinders, and gunnery control in general, was highly regarded. However her main armor deck was too low in the ship, leaving her vital communications and fire control systems vulnerable, and her fire control systems were knocked out early in her final battle against British heavy units. While German machinery tended to be too complex, and unreliable throughout the war. There are also questions about how effective her armour was, as its intersting to note that the British Rodney was instrumental in her sinking, despite being built in the 1920's and being considerably slower. Rodney quickly overwhelmed Bismarck with her accurate 16in gunfire, and pretty much pounding her into a flaming junk with some help from King George V, while Bismarck never hit Rodney at all.

[dragoon500ly]

The Japanese battleline in WWII was not the most modern in the world...

The IJN had 4 Kongo-class battleships launched in 1912/13 and refitted in 1936. They were the fastest of the IJN's BB at 30.5 knots. They weighed in at 31,720 tons and were armed with 4 twin mounted 14-inch guns, 14 single mounted 6-inch guns (later lowered to 8), 4 twin 5-inch DP guns (increased to 6 twin mounts) and 20 25mm AA guns (increased to 94).

Two Fuso-class battleships launched in 1914/15 and displacing 34,700 tons and with a speed of 24.75 knots. Armed with 6 twin 14-inch guns, 14 single mount 6-inch guns, 4 twin mount 5-inch DP guns and 16 25mm AA guns (later increased to 37) The IJN modernizied them in 1932 but considered them to be too slow for front line use.

Two Ise-class battleships launched in 1916/17 and displacing 36,000 tons and with a speed of 25.25 knots. Initially armed with 6 twin 14-inch guns, 16 single mount 5.5-inch guns, 4 twin 5-inch AA guns and 20 25mm AA guns. After the disaster at Midway, the IJN converted these two into hybrid battleship-seaplane carriers. The armament was changed to 4 twin 14-inch, 8 twin 5-inch DP guns and 57 25mm AA guns as well as 22 seaplanes.

Two Nagato-class battleships launched in 1919/1920 and displacing 39,130 tons and with a speed of 25 knots. Armed with 4 twin 16-inch guns, 18 single 5.5-inch guns (lowered to 16), 4 twin 5-inch DP guns and 20 25mm AA guns (increased to 98).

And finally the two Yamato-class battleships, launched in 1940 and displacing 71,659 tons and with a speed of 27.5 knots. Armed with 3 triple 18-inch guns, 4 triple 6.1-inch guns (reduced to two mounts), 6 twin 5-inch DP guns (increased to 12 twin mounts) and 24 25mm AA guns (increased to 146 25mm).

Unlike the USN, the IJN fought the war with older battleships, most of whom were modernized in the 1930s and later had refits with radar and increased numbers of light AA guns. Of the twelve BBs they started the war with; 2 were sunk in 1942; 1 in 1943; 4 in 1944; 4 in 1945; 1 in 1946. Ten were sunk by US forces, one by an accidental magazine explosion and one survived the war, only to be a target at the Bikini nuclear bomb test.

[dragoon500ly]

Bismarck did indeed have radars, 3 x FuMo23 and FuMO21 radars, and German rangefinders, and gunnery control in general, was highly regarded. However her main armor deck was too low in the ship, leaving her vital communications and fire control systems vulnerable, and her fire control systems were knocked out early in her final battle against British heavy units. While German machinery tended to be too complex, and unreliable throughout the war. There are also questions about how effective her armour was, as its intersting to note that the British Rodney was instrumental in her sinking, despite being built in the 1920's and being considerably slower. Rodney quickly overwhelmed Bismarck with her accurate 16in gunfire, and pretty much pounding her into a flaming junk with some help from King George V, while Bismarck never hit Rodney at all.

There were also a lot of concerns about Bismarck's underwater protection as well as her vulnerable rudder design, not mention the difficultly she had in using her engines to steer.

[dragoon500ly]

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

Have to disagree here, to be certain the US started mounting radars after Pearl Harbor, but it took the murderous fighting off Guadalcanal to teach the USN how to effectively use radars.

The USN started out with a serious case of severe overconfidence in the capability of radar. In many of the naval battles, the IJN, using lookouts with the old Mark I Eyeball spotted US ships long before they were visible on radar!

[RN7]

The Japanese battleline in WWII was not the most modern in the world...

The IJN had 4 Kongo-class battleships launched in 1912/13 and refitted in 1936. They were the fastest of the IJN's BB at 30.5 knots. They weighed in at 31,720 tons and were armed with 4 twin mounted 14-inch guns, 14 single mounted 6-inch guns (later lowered to 8), 4 twin 5-inch DP guns (increased to 6 twin mounts) and 20 25mm AA guns (increased to 94).

Two Fuso-class battleships launched in 1914/15 and displacing 34,700 tons and with a speed of 24.75 knots. Armed with 6 twin 14-inch guns, 14 single mount 6-inch guns, 4 twin mount 5-inch DP guns and 16 25mm AA guns (later increased to 37) The IJN modernizied them in 1932 but considered them to be too slow for front line use.

Two Ise-class battleships launched in 1916/17 and displacing 36,000 tons and with a speed of 25.25 knots. Initially armed with 6 twin 14-inch guns, 16 single mount 5.5-inch guns, 4 twin 5-inch AA guns and 20 25mm AA guns. After the disaster at Midway, the IJN converted these two into hybrid battleship-seaplane carriers. The armament was changed to 4 twin 14-inch, 8 twin 5-inch DP guns and 57 25mm AA guns as well as 22 seaplanes.

Two Nagato-class battleships launched in 1919/1920 and displacing 39,130 tons and with a speed of 25 knots. Armed with 4 twin 16-inch guns, 18 single 5.5-inch guns (lowered to 16), 4 twin 5-inch DP guns and 20 25mm AA guns (increased to 98).

And finally the two Yamato-class battleships, launched in 1940 and displacing 71,659 tons and with a speed of 27.5 knots. Armed with 3 triple 18-inch guns, 4 triple 6.1-inch guns (reduced to two mounts), 6 twin 5-inch DP guns (increased to 12 twin mounts) and 24 25mm AA guns (increased to 146 25mm).

Unlike the USN, the IJN fought the war with older battleships, most of whom were modernized in the 1930s and later had refits with radar and increased numbers of light AA guns. Of the twelve BBs they started the war with; 2 were sunk in 1942; 1 in 1943; 4 in 1944; 4 in 1945; 1 in 1946. Ten were sunk by US forces, one by an accidental magazine explosion and one survived the war, only to be a target at the Bikini nuclear bomb test.


Japan's biggest naval advantage over British and American forces at the beginning of the war were the quality of its aircrew and carrier capable aircraft, which were noticeably superior to their British and American counterparts, and its government was far more ruthless. With the exception of the two giant Yamato Class battleships Japanese battleships were no better than British or American battleships, in fact their fleet may have been on average older than the two main allied navies, and most would consider the later war Iowa Class a better and arguably more powerfull battleship than the Yamato Class.

The Japanese fleet was smaller than both the American and British fleets at the start of the war, although it was concentrated in the Western Pacific. Japan did had more operational carriers than either Britain or America, and some cheating went on about their dimensions during their construction as Japan was still bound to the terms of the Washington Treaty. But Japanese carriers werent superior to allied carriers at the start of the war, in fact the best might have been the British carriers which had armoured flights decks.

[dragoon500ly]

The Japanese fleet was smaller than both the American and British fleets at the start of the war, although it was concentrated in the Western Pacific. Japan did had more operational carriers than either Britain or America, and some cheating went on about their dimensions during their construction as Japan was still bound to the terms of the Washington Treaty. But Japanese carriers werent superior to allied carriers at the start of the war, in fact the best might have been the British carriers which had armoured flights decks.

As to who had the better carrier, many people forget that the primary mission of the carrier is to project power; this is executed by the carrier's airgroup (both in size and capability). By this standard, the British did not have the finest carriers of the war, they had the most surviveable carriers, but their protection was paid for by smaller airgroups and above all, less storage space for avgas and munitions.

The Japanese carriers started the war with a small, hand-picked group of pilots. The primary failure of the IJN aviation is that they had no means of expanding or replacing the loss of the pre-war pilots. Many people consider the Battle of Midway to be the critical turning point, it wasn't. The key turning point for the IJN was the brutal fighting in the Soloman Islands were many of their most experienced pilots died, the IJN never recovered and their losses in the 1944-45 battles reflects this.

The American carriers stumbled in the early war but as more decks and additional air groups entered the war, they quickly became the major factor in the Allied advances in the Pacific.

[boogiedowndonovan]

where's Matt Wiser? He usually chimes in on naval matters.

[RN7]

As to who had the better carrier, many people forget that the primary mission of the carrier is to project power; this is executed by the carrier's airgroup (both in size and capability). By this standard, the British did not have the finest carriers of the war, they had the most surviveable carriers, but their protection was paid for by smaller airgroups and above all, less storage space for avgas and munitions.

The Japanese carriers started the war with a small, hand-picked group of pilots. The primary failure of the IJN aviation is that they had no means of expanding or replacing the loss of the pre-war pilots. Many people consider the Battle of Midway to be the critical turning point, it wasn't. The key turning point for the IJN was the brutal fighting in the Soloman Islands were many of their most experienced pilots died, the IJN never recovered and their losses in the 1944-45 battles reflects this.

The American carriers stumbled in the early war but as more decks and additional air groups entered the war, they quickly became the major factor in the Allied advances in the Pacific.

I think survivability in the Pacific was highly important in a war which became dominated by air power more than anywhere else. Most British carriers up until the two Implacable Class ships and the Indomitable Class were built within the confines of ship design and the Second London Naval Treaty to which they complied, unlike the Japanese who had withdrawn from it. America was able to produce the pre-war Lexington's as they were originally to be battlecruisers, but they were cancelled after work had begun under the terms of the Washington Treaty and the tonnage was allowed for aircraft carriers instead. Once the war started America could build whatever it liked to what size it wanted hense the rapid production of the Essex Class, which neither Britain or Japan could match in numbers for industrial reasons, and Britain also had different naval ship buiding priorities. British heavy units and carriers were pretty much absent from the Pacific after early 1942, and only started returning from 1944. Different design philosophies for different priorities influenced the differences between US and British carriers. Although the American carriers had bigger air wings the werent as survivable as the British units until the Midway Class.

[dragoon500ly]

There is no doubt that when a suicide plane was inbound, I'd rather be aboard a WWII British carrier than an Essex-class.

But the purpose of an aircraft carrier is not to survive attacks, it is to launch them. The USN made the decision to go with more hanger space as well as increased avgas storage and magazine space. Did it make US carriers more prone to damage, without a doubt! But it also allowed the USN to throw heavier airstrikes for a longer period of time than another navy in WWII. And those larger air groups allowed the carriers defense in depth. Coupled with the development of the new VT fuze, it made attacking an American carrier task force a bloody affair.

[dragoon500ly]

Since we are discusing carrier air groups, here are some intresting facts...

In Dec 1941

A US Fleet Carrier deployed with 18 fighters, 36 dive/scout bombers and 18 torpedo bombers.

A Japanese Fleet Carrier deployed with 18 fighters, 18 dive bombers and 18-27 torpedo bombers.

A British Carrier (Feb 42) deployed with 21 fighters and 24 torpedo bombers.

In Sept 1943

A US Fleet Carrier deployed with 38 fighters, 28 dive bombers and 18 torpedo bombers.

A Japanese Fleet Carrier deployed with 18-27 fighters, 20-27 dive bombers and 10-23 torpedo bombers.

A British Fleet Carrier deployed with 36 fighters and 12 dive bombers.

In Dec 1944

A US Fleet Carrier deployed with 71 fighters, 15 dive bombers and 15 torpedo bombers.

A Japanese Fleet Carrier deployed with 26-27 fighters, 25-26 dive bombers and 17 torpedo bombers.

A British Fleet Carrier deployed with 60 fighters and 18 dive bombers.

[dragoon500ly]

Here's an intresting tidbit....the all time record for most enemy aircraft confirmed shot down in a single action goes to the USS South Dakota.

During the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, on October 26, 1942, she was attacked by a force of over 65 dive and torpedo bombers. In a wild melee in which she suffered three bomb hits and a near miss, she shot down 26 of her attackers. A record that has remained unbroken to this day.

[Legbreaker]

And probably never will be broken given that an average plane today is probably worth an entire WWII wing+.

[Webstral]

On the subject of carriers, it was a bloody miracle that the Germans never really got into the idea. German carrier fleets couldof decimated the Royal navy and would of blockaded the UK ina way that the U-boats could never of acheived.

The German Navy did understand the potential of aircraft carriers. Hitler just didn't keep to the timetable. He invaded Poland nine years too early for a German Navy with carriers.

Webstral

[James Langham]

The German Navy did understand the potential of aircraft carriers. Hitler just didn't keep to the timetable. He invaded Poland nine years too early for a German Navy with carriers.

Webstral

The plan was called Plan Z. The biggest drawback to it was it made mo allowances for the Royal Navy to react to the programme, oh and the war started early...

[Webstral]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

Technology is a combat multiplier, like troop quality. A bankrupt strategy is a bankrupt strategy. Assuming a halfway decent strategy, the key is that the leaders and troops using the technology know what to do with it. I suspect the tankers of VII US Corps would argue that technology gave them a decisive edge in western Kuwait in early 1991. The Japanese Navy trained hard for night actions and really took it to the US Navy around Guadalcanal in 1942. As the USN learned what to do with their radar, night actions at sea became less successful for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I agree that Americans are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, etc. There are some good reasons for this. Hardware looks handsome and brings revenues into Congressman Jones' district. Well-trained troops cost money but don't employ factory workers; and on the parade ground it's nearly impossible to tell the proficient killers from the professional boot polishers. Also, we cling fervently to the idea that all around the world people are, deep down, Americans: democratic, enterprising, and all the other nice ideas. Therefore, we believe in the "tipping point" thesis, in which just a little more effort (money, technology, firepower) will set off a chain of events in which the people will come together, the war will be won, representative government will spontaneously erupt, and the rats we had to get into bed with will be swept away in the new dawn of Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani democracy. Then we'll all have pie (make mine apple, please). Machines, therefore, are more comfortable to believe in than cold-eyed killers and pragmatists who say things we'd rather not hear about what it will take to achieve victory--whatever that means.

Webstral

The problem, the very scary problem, is it will take a massive and bloody defeat on American soil to change this attitude. While America fights conflicts in the gardens of other nations, there will never be enough incentive to change doctrine.

Look at internatonal terrorism, for decades the Americans never took it seriously enough, in fact they supported many terrorist groups operating in Soviet-controlled nations. It's also a big bone of contention over here that Americans in New York and Boston where fund raising for the IRA.

It took 9/11 to really shake America and make the American people and government realise how dangerous terrorism really is and why supporting it, even in hostile nations, is a recipe for disaster. Afterall, it was the American-supported individuals who fought the Russians that masterminded 9/11.

[LBraden]

Aye, it always gets me how people do not realise the "other side" of my fathers exact comment when I got home from school that day and said "what the hell is going on", he replied "The bastards finally got what they need".

Part of that IS because the US paid for terrorism against Communism, but also, large areas of the Eastern Seaboard in the US paid, supplied and even hides IRA people, who in my fathers eyes, as he was 1 Ulster Defence Regiment of the British Army, born in Northern Ireland, are terrorists.

But I think we are going a little off topic from Carriers, but yes, its interesting to see what overtures are going on in Taiwan and China, and that it does appears since some news I heard yesterday, that China has an interest in a "Coastal Defence Force" and using fighters launching Exocets at long ranges.

[rcaf_777]

Owning a carrier is one thing, operating one and carrier strike group, is something completely different, by the time China can operate a carrier strike group, the US will have left that field and moved onto something far more flexible and unmanned

[95th Rifleman]

Owning a carrier is one thing, operating one and carrier strike group, is something completely different, by the time China can operate a carrier strike group, the US will have left that field and moved onto something far more flexible and unmanned

Which could be America's downfall.

[ShadoWarrior]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

[95th Rifleman]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

Remember that thing about over-reliance on technology?

[ShadoWarrior]

Remember that thing about over-reliance on technology?
Yes. In this case it's replacing a very expensive, technologically very complex manned plane with a much cheaper, less complex unmanned one. So your point is what?

Using something newer isn't automatically bad. Or is nothing short of lining up hordes of troops and having them toss rocks at enemies going to please you? No western country can afford to field a massive "low tech" (50-70s level) army. Hell, the current Libya thing is showing just how poorly Europe is prepared to handle even a short duration 'war' against a third-rate country. Several of the NATO participants are already running low on ammo (which the US is having to supply in the interim), and that's not even the best high-tech stuff such as cruise missiles, just the sort of bombs and missiles that were used as far back as Gulf War I. So any force multiplier, such as cheaper unmanned drones that don't cost friendly lives and a whopping amount of money if lost is a smart idea. The alternative is worse. If you have a better idea regarding using tech to solve manpower and cost problems (other than to not fight at all, which is an entirely different discussion), I'll be interested to hear it.

[RN7]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

This is an aerospace technology that could to a certain extent level the playing field. Advanced manned combat jet aircraft are very expensive to develop and manufacture, and this is an area where America is unquestionably ahead of the rest of the world, as America's main competitors dont have the money (Russia), the technology (China, India) or the political will/unity (Europe) to fully compete. The development of combat UCAV's could give other countries a chance to catch up to a degree with American aerospace technological dominance in the future.

[ShadoWarrior]

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

[RN7]

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

Well I would consider Britain's aerospace industry among the strongest in the world, mainly due to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce plc. I would also argue that Rolls Royce plc is the most important industrial company in Europe, and its notable how the British government has never let it be taken over by a rival company or a foreign based concern despite its relatively small size.

Unfortunately Britain is part of the EU, and the British government insists on cooperating with other European countries in defence matters, supposedly to save money in R&D and manufacturing. However most of these project always end up over budget and lead to squabling, and usually harm its competiveness and potential marketability.

[Webstral]

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don’t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers—only poor leaders), logistics that aren’t equal to the task, or don’t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don’t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers—only poor leaders), logistics that aren’t equal to the task, or don’t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

Pretty much what I was trying to say. Also over-reliance in technology actualy increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.

Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.

This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticiapted or prepared for.

Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"

The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Congratulations to the ChiComs. They now have exactly the same amount of fleet air power that Brazil, Thailand, France, India, Spain, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have.

We've got 11 active and more that could be made active if the need were pressing.

The Soviets never, ever managed to get the Kiev nor its aircraft working right.

I hate to sound like one of "those" Americans, and pride goeth before the fall and blah blah blah but honestly we've perfected blue water Naval ops to a fine art in the 20th century and we're pretty much the only country to do carriers "right", ever.

If China wants to fuck around with a through deck cruiser and join the CV club they're welcome to try. Lots of luck with that 40 year old tub. On the other hand if China wants to put us in our place they should just do it like they're planning to do: via Citibank and the Federal Reserve. A lot simpler and so easy we won't even feel it until its too late. Then our CVNs will in actuality belong to them without them having to sink a one.

Remember the scene in Jericho? "DO NOT FIGHT. CHINA IS YOUR FRIEND."

[LBraden]

Er, I think you got it wrong Sir, the Fleet Air Arm is no longer an effective force due to the Tories cuts, we have NO force, even if we re-activate Ark Royal, all she will be able to use is Lynx and Sea Kings, no attack craft - AT ALL, not until 2018, and that's IF the F-35 actually does work properly.

I have had a friend of mine from Denmark joke that even the Danish Navy could take out the RN now.

[ShadoWarrior]

China is no one's friend. All you have to do is ask the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, or the Indians, just to name a few.

[mikeo80]

IMHO, the Chinese could sink one of our Nimitz class carriers.

Imagine this scenario:

The Chi-com's threaten Taiwan. They start massing what blue water craft the have with loads of landing craft.

The POTUS orders 7th Fleet closer to support Taiwan. Say about 2-300 miles from Taiwan.

As of today, there is one (yes only one!!) Nimitz class carrier based in a forward staging area, the U.S.S. George Washington. Carrier is based in Japan.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/forces.htm

So, the GW and supporting ships and subs head for Taiwan.

Once on station, the GW could start air power projection flights.

one small problem.

the 1000 - 2000 cigarrette boats that China sends at the 7th fleet. Each carring about 750-1000 pounds of HE.

Will the Chi-coms loose a lot of little boats? Sure....

Will the USA loose a Nimitz class CVA and all of the prestege attached to that ship? At least maybe... And that is with no nukes!! I would think that the CHi-com's do NOT want to poke that particular stick in Uncle Sam's Eye.

my $0.02 ! :D

Mike

[Webstral]

…over-reliance in technology [actually] increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.

Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.
This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticipated or prepared for.

Over-reliance on technology to solve problems of asymmetrical warfare, which the NLF practiced in Vietnam, is a symptom of a bigger problem. Reliance on mass, patriotic fervor, élan, reprisals against civilians, etc. are symptomatic of immaturity at the highest levels of command and, in the case of nations with representative governments, immaturity among the body politic. Under the stress of warfare real or threatened, nations reflexively turn to whatever advantage they perceive themselves to possess. In the case of the US during the run-up to American assumption of the main Western effort in Vietnam, a fervent belief in the myth of international Communism combined with more-or-less successful containment efforts in Greece and Indonesia led us down the garden path. Once there, we invested what we had the most of: money. Our investment in Vietnam was characterized less by the use of technology than by a staggering investment of funds. From an ethical standpoint, we also allowed ourselves to benchmark our willingness to take life in the pursuit of objectives against the policy of bombing Japan. Without commenting on whether LeMay’s doctrine was appropriate or necessary, the level of destruction that became associated with victory over Japan led to an excessive hard-heartedness on the part of American commanders charged with saving from Communism the very people on whom they were unleashing unprecedented levels of firepower. American involvement in Vietnam was a product of paranoia about Communism. American investment in Vietnam was characterized by a lavish expenditure of funding on the sorts of things we like to spend money on: hardware, infrastructure (think Cam Ran Bay), things that go boom, and good living for the troops. Technology, though an important component of the overall scheme, was incidental to the willingness to spend, spend, spend and take as many Vietnamese lives as necessary to achieve victory using tools ill-suited to the war actually being fought.

The problem of immaturity is not unique to the United States. I dare say it is ubiquitous. Immaturity at the top of the American leadership ladder and among the body politic is more noticeable in the modern world because the United States has had the means since World War Two to undertake endeavors not possible for other nations. If French and British immaturities appear less pronounced than American immaturity, it’s because circumstances have imposed sharper limits on French and British opportunities for poor decision-making on the global stage. China’s expansion is so remarkable partially because it reflects good decision-making on the part of virtual autocrats who are under limited obligation to make good decisions.



Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"

The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.

This is a perfect example of the maturity challenge. The technologically advanced US military did exactly what it was supposed to do. The defending conventional forces were eliminated at a very low cost in Blue Force casualties and modest civilian casualties. It’s hard to find fault with technology or a so-called over-reliance on it here. The fact that the US military was charged with a mission with no substantive follow-on plan demonstrates that the civilian leadership of the day lacked the maturity to question the underlying assumption that once freed from the thirty-year reign of Saddam Hussein the Iraqi people would promptly become good citizens of a presumably emergent democracy. The voices of reason, like General Shinseki, were thrown out on their ears for suggesting that the US would have to pay for 350,000 troops to keep law and order during the post-liberation process. This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with simple immaturity. The body politic, who should have reacted to the lack of any decent post-liberation plan of action by demanding that Congress get control of the situation before the troops were committed, instead acted as willing accomplices. Reliance on technology is a symptom of wealth and immaturity.


Webstral

[RN7]

IMHO, the Chinese could sink one of our Nimitz class carriers.

Imagine this scenario:

The Chi-com's threaten Taiwan. They start massing what blue water craft the have with loads of landing craft.

The POTUS orders 7th Fleet closer to support Taiwan. Say about 2-300 miles from Taiwan.

As of today, there is one (yes only one!!) Nimitz class carrier based in a forward staging area, the U.S.S. George Washington. Carrier is based in Japan.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/forces.htm

So, the GW and supporting ships and subs head for Taiwan.

Once on station, the GW could start air power projection flights.

one small problem.

the 1000 - 2000 cigarrette boats that China sends at the 7th fleet. Each carring about 750-1000 pounds of HE.

Will the Chi-coms loose a lot of little boats? Sure....

Will the USA loose a Nimitz class CVA and all of the prestege attached to that ship? At least maybe... And that is with no nukes!! I would think that the CHi-com's do NOT want to poke that particular stick in Uncle Sam's Eye.

my $0.02 ! :D

Mike


I think a bit of wishfull thinking here. If China seriously started an invasion of Taiwan the US Navy would be sending a lot more than one aircraft carrier into the area, and in addition to the navy fighters there are a lot of Marine and USAF combat aircraft already in the Far East, and a lot more could be there in a few days.

[ShadoWarrior]

I think a bit of wishfull thinking here. If China seriously started an invasion of Taiwan the US Navy would be sending a lot more than one aircraft carrier into the area, and in addition to the navy fighters there are a lot of Marine and USAF combat aircraft already in the Far East, and a lot more could be there in a few days.
True. But the real trick is for the very limited in-theater forces to be able to delay the oncoming Chinese horde long enough for those reserves to make it across the Pacific. The ROC, Japanese, US, Aussie, and ROK military units in the theater really don't have the power to stop an all-out invasion. Only the threat of a US escalation to nuclear really keeps China from munching on Taiwan today.

In the meantime, China continues to play the long game of destabilizing the economies and political will of its opponents and bides its time, hoping that some really stupid future government of Taiwan will cave in to their demands.

[RN7]

True. But the real trick is for the very limited in-theater forces to be able to delay the oncoming Chinese horde long enough for those reserves to make it across the Pacific. The ROC, Japanese, US, Aussie, and ROK military units in the theater really don't have the power to stop an all-out invasion. Only the threat of a US escalation to nuclear really keeps China from munching on Taiwan today.

In the meantime, China continues to play the long game of destabilizing the economies and political will of its opponents and bides its time, hoping that some really stupid future government of Taiwan will cave in to their demands.

But if the Chinese start massing its navy, landing craft and army across the Taiwan Strait I think someone is going to notice this fairly quickly.

[RN7]

How I see this is that China at the moment doesn't have the logistical capability to pull of a sucessful invasion of Taiwan. It also doesn't have the air or naval power to dominate the airspace or seaways around Taiwan once America commits itself to the defence of Taiwan.

[ShadoWarrior]

But if the Chinese start massing its navy, landing craft and army across the Taiwan Strait I think someone is going to notice this fairly quickly.
If they do that. The Chinese do not have to do an Overlord or Sealion massing of forces before launching an invasion. Why telegraph intentions when you don't need to? They have enough ships and transport planes within range of Taiwan to launch a surprise attack at almost any time. Most ROC invasion scenarios begin with a simulated detection of waves of strike aircraft which will precede airborne landings. Those airborne assaults will be much larger in scale than those of D-Day. There would be Chinese troops already on the ground on Taiwan before any ships left their mainland harbors.

[ShadoWarrior]

How I see this is that China at the moment doesn't have the logistical capability to pull of a sucessful invasion of Taiwan.
I believe that's wishful thinking.

It also doesn't have the air or naval power to dominate the airspace or seaways around Taiwan once America commits itself to the defence of Taiwan.
The real issue is whether the Chinese can present a fait accompli before the US can do anything about it. Taiwan lacks the firepower to repel an invasion, and the US lacks sufficient force on station to do so either. Only the deterrent of China starting a war with the US keeps Taiwan free. Taiwan falls no matter what. The only question is if the US is willing to go to war with China (just as the UK and France went to war with Nazi Germany knowing they couldn't stop the Germans from taking Poland).

[RN7]

If they do that. The Chinese do not have to do an Overlord or Sealion massing of forces before launching an invasion. Why telegraph intentions when you don't need to? They have enough ships and transport planes within range of Taiwan to launch a surprise attack at almost any time. Most ROC invasion scenarios begin with a simulated detection of waves of strike aircraft which will precede airborne landings. Those airborne assaults will be much larger in scale than those of D-Day. There would be Chinese troops already on the ground on Taiwan before any ships left their mainland harbors.

Well if the Taiwanese have already predicted how the Chinese are going to invade them, then they probably will already know what the Chinese are up to and how their going to try and invade them.

Taiwan does have a large and sophisticated air defence network with modern radars and Patriot, Hawk Phase III and Sky Bow II long ranged SAMs, E-2 AWACS and over 350 fighters. You can't just send in transport planes loaded with troops over a heavily defended country without eliminating the air defence network, which will take some time even in the unlikely event that America didn't intervene. Also I think mass paratroop drops are probably a thing of the past, and have been since the development of airmobile helcopters. Also paratroops are fairly lightly armed troops and have to be reinforced, the Taiwanese army has over 900 tanks and thousands of AFVs. Also if China planned to reinforce its paratroops then it would have to assemble armour, artillery, troops and supplies on the mainland in large numbers to be shipped over on Chinese landing craft and cargo ships, all of which wouldn't go unnoticed to American satellites.

[ShadoWarrior]

Taiwan does have a large and sophisticated air defence network with modern radars and Patriot, Hawk Phase III and Sky Bow II long ranged SAMs, E-2 AWACS and over 350 fighters. You can't just send in transport planes loaded with troops over a heavily defended country without eliminating the air defence network, which will take some time even in the unlikely event that America didn't intervene.
No argument. But, as someone else likes to point out, technology has its weakness, and swamping the defenders is likely. Sure, the Chicom losses would be horrendous. Since when do the Chicom leaders care about killing thousands (or millions) of their own? Short answer is they don't. Is it sustainable? No. Does it need to be? No. The Chicoms throw several hundred planes and thousands of missiles at Taiwan, both of which they have. Eventually the defenders run out of defenses. The only question is how long it takes.

Also I think mass paratroop drops are probably a thing of the past, and have been since the development of airmobile helcopters. Also paratroops are fairly lightly armed troops and have to be reinforced, the Taiwanese army has over 900 tanks and thousands of AFVs.
Manpack AT missiles are a lot cheaper than the AFVs they're meant to take out, they're highly effective, and all modern armies have thousands of them. They are readily carried even by airborne troops. HALO drops after most of the airspace over Taiwan is secured allows the Chicoms to get a toehold on the island and capture key objectives, clearing the way for second-wave airmobile reinforcements, which in turn secure more objectives clearing the way for third-wave amphib reinforcements.

The only issue is if the PLA air force can achieve air supremacy before the US arrives to kick serious butt. They don't even have to achieve it and maintain it for long. Just long enough to allow airborne/airmobile forces to get a toehold. Once Chicom forces are already on Taiwanese soil the nature of the battle becomes much more thorny for the good guys.

Also if China planned to reinforce its paratroops then it would have to assemble armour, artillery, troops and supplies on the mainland in large numbers to be shipped over on Chinese landing craft and cargo ships, all of which wouldn't go unnoticed to American satellites.
It would go unnoticed if the loading happened over a long enough period of time, and was done when the sats weren't overhead. You can put an awful lot of troops and vehicles on a commercial RO-RO and no one would be the wiser until said ship started spewing its cargo on to the docks. Surprise!

[RN7]

I believe that's wishful thinking.

The real issue is whether the Chinese can present a fait accompli before the US can do anything about it. Taiwan lacks the firepower to repel an invasion, and the US lacks sufficient force on station to do so either. Only the deterrent of China starting a war with the US keeps Taiwan free. Taiwan falls no matter what. The only question is if the US is willing to go to war with China (just as the UK and France went to war with Nazi Germany knowing they couldn't stop the Germans from taking Poland).

Taiwan has been preparing for an invasion from mainland China since 1949. China's amphibous assault fleet is limited to smaller vessels with limited sea lift capacity, and they currently have only LPD with a capacity of 800 troops, a few helicopters and 20 vehicles. They do have a large number of large and small landing ships, but they would be extremely vulnerable to air and naval attack from both Taiwanese and American forces. American could stop China from invading Taiwan without even bothering to attack the Chinese mainland outside of a few strikes on targets that might be considered dangerous to American forces operating in and around Taiwan, and would seriously maul Chinese naval and air forces in the process of doing so.

[RN7]

No argument. But, as someone else likes to point out, technology has its weakness, and swamping the defenders is likely. Sure, the Chicom losses would be horrendous. Since when do the Chicom leaders care about killing thousands (or millions) of their own? Short answer is they don't. Is it sustainable? No. Does it need to be? No. The Chicoms throw several hundred planes and thousands of missiles at Taiwan, both of which they have. Eventually the defenders run out of defenses. The only question is how long it takes.


Manpack AT missiles are a lot cheaper than the AFVs they're meant to take out, they're highly effective, and all modern armies have thousands of them. They are readily carried even by airborne troops. HALO drops after most of the airspace over Taiwan is secured allows the Chicoms to get a toehold on the island and capture key objectives, clearing the way for second-wave airmobile reinforcements, which in turn secure more objectives clearing the way for third-wave amphib reinforcements.

The only issue is if the PLA air force can achieve air supremacy before the US arrives to kick serious butt. They don't even have to achieve it and maintain it for long. Just long enough to allow airborne/airmobile forces to get a toehold. Once Chicom forces are already on Taiwanese soil the nature of the battle becomes much more thorny for the good guys.


It would go unnoticed if the loading happened over a long enough period of time, and was done when the sats weren't overhead. You can put an awful lot of troops and vehicles on a commercial RO-RO and no one would be the wiser until said ship started spewing its cargo on to the docks. Surprise!


Maybe in Hollywood.

[ShadoWarrior]

American could stop China from invading Taiwan without even bothering to attack the Chinese mainland outside of a few strikes on targets that might be considered dangerous to American forces operating in and around Taiwan, and would seriously maul Chinese naval and air forces in the process of doing so.
That's predicated on the assumption that American sea and air power was already on station. Last I checked we don't have a CBG on permanent station at Taiwan. So any theater AD would have to rely solely on Taiwanese assets until US assets got to the AO.

[RN7]

That's predicated on the assumption that American sea and air power was already on station. Last I checked we don't have a CBG on permanent station at Taiwan. So any theater AD would have to rely solely on Taiwanese assets until US assets got to the AO.

But there are six navy carrier strike groups assigned to the US Pacific Fleet, including one based in Japan. There are also two USAF fighter wings based in Japan, two more based in South Korea and another based in Hawaii, and a Marine Air Wing based in Okinawa.

[ShadoWarrior]

I do believe I mentioned something regarding the Chicoms needing to achieve air supremacy before the US got assets into the AO. The invaders do have a window in which to do what they need to do. It's not a big window, either. They have however long it takes for F/A-18s to get to Taiwan from Japan at cruise speed.

Can the Chinese do it? Depends on how quickly they can suppress Taiwan's AD. Which in turn depends on a lot of technology, on both sides, that has not (yet) been tested in combat.

Automatically assuming that the Chicoms will fail any such attempt is just the sort of arrogance that has caused the US much grief many times in the past.

[Webstral]

Automatically assuming that the Chicoms will fail any such attempt is just the sort of arrogance that has caused the US much grief many times in the past.

Ain’t that the truth—and not just for the US, either. Battle plans are highly perishable.

I wonder, though, whether economics haven’t trumped the military options for the time being. China holds massive amounts of US debt. The temptation for Washington to renege on debt to the PRC as an opening salvo in Sino-American conflict would be enormous. The bean counters in Beijing probably regularly update their calculations of just how much this would cost China. Then, too, there is the issue of sanctions, cancelation of debt held in euro and other currencies. China’s ability to invade and capture Taiwan may be less relevant than China’s perception of the total cost.


Webstral

[ShadoWarrior]

Taiwan is worth trillions of dollars. Add up the liquidation values (not the much higher market values) of all the industrial and commercial companies on the island, plus the value of the land itself, plus the value of the (destined to be slave) labor force. It's a lot. Compared to that the US debt that China holds is essentially trivial.

But, if the ChiComs can get it without having to fire a shot, so much the better. Democracies are short-sighted and corporations (which manipulate politics in those democracies) are highly self-serving. Neither governments nor businesses, nor the masses of sheep, think in terms of decades. The ChiComs do.

[95th Rifleman]

A note on casualties.

War weariness is the killer factor in any conflict involving a democratic nation. If the conflict goes hot, China can sustain more casualties than America ever could. Vietnam proved that the key to defeating America is to kill enough soldiers, quickly enough to force the American people to make the US government back down.

[Targan]

But, if the ChiComs can get it without having to fire a shot, so much the better. Democracies are short-sighted and corporations (which manipulate politics in those democracies) are highly self-serving. Neither governments nor businesses, nor the masses of sheep, think in terms of decades. The ChiComs do.

Yup. When you've had essentially the same bureaucracy in place for the last 3000 years-plus, you have the mindset to play the long game.

[RN7]

I do believe I mentioned something regarding the Chicoms needing to achieve air supremacy before the US got assets into the AO. The invaders do have a window in which to do what they need to do. It's not a big window, either. They have however long it takes for F/A-18s to get to Taiwan from Japan at cruise speed.

Can the Chinese do it? Depends on how quickly they can suppress Taiwan's AD. Which in turn depends on a lot of technology, on both sides, that has not (yet) been tested in combat.

Automatically assuming that the Chicoms will fail any such attempt is just the sort of arrogance that has caused the US much grief many times in the past.


Well I would assume the Chinese would fail in any attempt to take Taiwan because they don't have the logistical capability to succesfully invade Taiwan, and their airforce and navy is not up to taking on the Americans.

[RN7]

Ain’t that the truth—and not just for the US, either. Battle plans are highly perishable.

I wonder, though, whether economics haven’t trumped the military options for the time being. China holds massive amounts of US debt. The temptation for Washington to renege on debt to the PRC as an opening salvo in Sino-American conflict would be enormous. The bean counters in Beijing probably regularly update their calculations of just how much this would cost China. Then, too, there is the issue of sanctions, cancelation of debt held in euro and other currencies. China’s ability to invade and capture Taiwan may be less relevant than China’s perception of the total cost.


Webstral

Also China is an export dependent economy, nearly 40% of its economy is fueled by exports, much of it by US, European and Japanese investment in China to manufacture products for export to developed markets. Wal-Mart is China's 7th largest export partner, just ahead of Britain.

[RN7]

A note on casualties.

War weariness is the killer factor in any conflict involving a democratic nation. If the conflict goes hot, China can sustain more casualties than America ever could. Vietnam proved that the key to defeating America is to kill enough soldiers, quickly enough to force the American people to make the US government back down.

Outside of air and naval forces I couldn't see America realy contributing much in the way of land forces in a Chinese-Taiwanese war. China would have to get a sustainable toe-hold on Taiwan for America to have to send the army and marines in to boot them out.

[Legbreaker]

Outside of air and naval forces I couldn't see America really contributing much in the way of land forces in a Chinese-Taiwanese war. China would have to get a sustainable toe-hold on Taiwan for America to have to send the army and marines in to boot them out.

Which right now they'd probably have significant difficulty in doing given that there's huge troop demands on the US military already in the middle east.

[James Langham]

Also China is an export dependent economy, nearly 40% of its economy is fueled by exports, much of it by US, European and Japanese investment in China to manufacture products for export to developed markets. Wal-Mart is China's 7th largest export partner, just ahead of Britain.

Just like it was during Tianamen Square...

If they consider that we in the West would just accept it if they can accomplish it quickly it becomes viable as an option.

[ShadoWarrior]

Strategically, Taiwan is a hell of a lot more important to US interests than the rock and dust piles many of those presently-committed troops are in. You'd hear a huge virtual sucking sound if Taiwan ever came under attack as the US rapidly (well, as rapidly as possible) pulled those troops out and redeployed them to someplace truly important.

[Legbreaker]

No doubt, however it would take weeks, perhaps even months pull them out of the field and shift those troops and all their vital equipment around the world and into action. By the time they got there, the war could well be over.
At least troops in barracks back home are almost packed up and ready to go. Those units might be in transit within a couple of days - provided adequate transport across the Pacific is on hand and doesn't need to be brought in from halfway around the world.

[simonmark6]

The idea that if something is done quickly enough then the West will accept it, didn't work for the Argentinians. The Brits were quite happy to let the Junta butcher as many of their own people as they wanted to and still sell them arms, but put twenty thousand conscripts of a sheep infested rock in the South Atlantic and the Task Force sailed.

Taiwan is far more important to the US than the Falklands were to the UK so I seriously doubt if the Chinese seriously think that if they can take Taiwan whilst the Americans are napping that the US will go, "Ah well, nothing we can do now.." and wander away.

[Legbreaker]

The difference here is that the Chinese have a hell of a lot bigger military than the Argentinians could even have wet dreams about! Retaking Taiwan wouldn't be anywhere near as simple as the Falklands were.

[ShadoWarrior]

At least troops in barracks back home are almost packed up and ready to go. Those units might be in transit within a couple of days - provided adequate transport across the Pacific is on hand and doesn't need to be brought in from halfway around the world.
True, but a problem is that most of the heavy gear is already deployed overseas, and not where we'd need them. It's a lot quicker to deploy the boots than to deploy the chariots. We do have a fair amount of heavy stuff in Korea, but it would be a bad idea to encourage those nutjobs in the North by pulling it and sending it to Taiwan.

OTOH, I'm of the opinion that in any invasion of Taiwan, China would use a diversion by their DPRK puppets to draw US attention (including carriers) away from where they intended to strike.

[Legbreaker]

Agreed. In the current situation, the necessary equipment and troops are all in the wrong places to repel an invasion or launch a quick counter attack. Whatever the response would be, it's likely to be some time after the initiation of hostilities (besides the odd air sortie and small scale op).

[ShadoWarrior]

Taiwan is far more important to the US than the Falklands were to the UK so I seriously doubt if the Chinese seriously think that if they can take Taiwan whilst the Americans are napping that the US will go, "Ah well, nothing we can do now.." and wander away.
That may be precisely what they might be thinking. The US has a poor track record when it comes to the idea of possibly losing tens of thousands of American troops somewhere offshore if the US homeland isn't at risk. Between Chicom propaganda on the one hand telling the US that American couch potatoes have nothing to fear while megacorporations with vested interests, such as Wal-Mart, lobby Congress OTOH to stay out of it, there's a high risk that Congress would not support a Presidential directive issued under the War Powers Act.

[Raellus]

OTOH, I'm of the opinion that in any invasion of Taiwan, China would use a diversion by their DPRK puppets to draw US attention (including carriers) away from where they intended to strike.

Scary thought. I just don't see the U.S. being in any position to do anything about a "surprise" PRC invasion of Taiwan. Maybe, once we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but that seems years away. Unless the Taiwanese put up one hell of a heroic fight (i.e. Battle of Britain, anyone?), we're just not going to be able to get there in the sort of numbers required to have much of a positive effect. Once the PRC gets a foothold on the island, it's pretty much over. I agree that the U.S. has no stomach for a war with China, on any scale.

[Webstral]

Taiwan is worth trillions of dollars. Add up the liquidation values (not the much higher market values) of all the industrial and commercial companies on the island, plus the value of the land itself, plus the value of the (destined to be slave) labor force. It's a lot. Compared to that the US debt that China holds is essentially trivial.

I’m going to suggest, dear compatriots, that a degree of nuance is called for in our blanket statements. I’m as guilty as the next man as snapping off sound bites—especially when Legbreaker and I are in a disagreement. Nonetheless, I think it’s worthwhile to have a more in-depth look at some of the ideas put forth here.

Regarding US debt owned by China, I’m not sure we can use the term “trivial” meaningfully when China holds in excess of $500 billion in US debt. Granted, it’s somewhat less than 5% of the GDP. Five percent is a big number in fiscal terms. Watch what happens when the Dow Jones drops 5%. When unemployment jumps by 5%, well… In any event, “trivial” is a trivializing term to describe a sum of money greater than the GNP of most members of the UN, greater than the GSP of most US states, and greater than the cost of the war in Iraq. The largest public works project in the history of the US (the Big Dig) experienced cost overruns somewhat in excess of 300% and will cost more than $20 billion by the time it has been paid off. For the price of China’s ownership of US debt, another twenty-four major US cities could have comparable projects completed. Thus while we may claim that a half-trillion may be an acceptable loss in a given context, I don’t believe the term “trivial” applies.

On the matter of context, however, we aren’t speaking of the value of a half-trillion to the US. We’re speaking of China. It’s hard to gauge what $500 billion is worth to China, given that the GNP is between $3 and $4.5 depending on whose analysis one believes. However, if we go with the figure that minimizes the impact of losing a half-trillion in US debt, then the money the PRC stands to lose through US default is equal to one-ninth of the economy, or slightly more than 10%. That’s a big hit. The Politburo is hard to read, since they aren’t elected officials. They may deem a 10% body blow right off the bat a good trade for the value of Taiwan. They also might worry about the effects of such massive losses to Chinese banks on the economy in the short term and, more importantly, about the loss of confidence domestically and potential unrest. China already has plenty of problems. Still, it’s hard to look into the minds of the senior leadership of the PRC without a lot more detailed information.

We might say that Taiwan is worth the prize because Taiwan is worth ever so much more than $500 billion in US debt. The equation quickly becomes very complex, though. One doesn’t simply liquidate Taiwan and convert the place into cash. Taiwan has value because it produces things and because people will pay for Taiwanese goods, services, and real estate. One very likely outcome of a PRC takeover of China is a real or virtual blockade of China’s foreign trade followed by freezing or seizure of China’s foreign assets. Having captured Taiwan, Beijing may discover that the principal customers of Taiwanese goods aren’t buying anymore. Worse, the principal customers of goods from the mainland aren’t buying anymore. The flow of investment currency from the West dries up. Chinese assets held overseas no longer can be converted into cash. The bad news just goes on and on. Billions of dollars of lost business daily adds up quickly.

Here’s where the submarines of the US Navy come in. Following the fall of Taiwan, the United States declares a total naval blockade of the PRC. Of course, the PLAN will do its best to break the blockade. US subs need not venture into Chinese coastal waters to sink every vessel worth sinking moving in and out of Chinese ports. Once the blockade takes on blue water aspects, the USN will be on its own turf, so to speak. China won’t be destroyed by a blockade, but she’ll experience great pain. To say that this pain would place enormous stress on the state security apparatus that keeps the decision-makers safe and sound would be a grotesque understatement.

From an economic standpoint, the short-term costs of an invasion of Taiwan are simply stupendous. It’s possible that the Politburo, being unelected, might decide to go ahead and do the thing anyway for other reasons. However, Beijing has made decisions over the past thirty years that demonstrate a priority for China’s economic growth and security. Win or lose an invasion of Taiwan, China would be trading that growth and security for the prospect of absorbing an island representing a small fraction of China’s population and productive capacity. While it’s possible that a wave of mindless nationalism could sweep over the Chinese senior leadership, it would not be in keeping with the patterns of behavior we’ve seen over the past three decades.

A note on casualties.

War weariness is the killer factor in any conflict involving a democratic nation. If the conflict goes hot, China can sustain more casualties than America ever could. Vietnam proved that the key to defeating America is to kill enough soldiers, quickly enough to force the American people to make the US government back down.

Vietnam proved that there is a formula for public support that includes factors like the number of casualties. Other factors include the length of the conflict, the public’s support for the goals of the conflict, the public’s perception of casualties, and so on. The US military has made great efforts to control the role of the media in this equation, with the backing of successive administrations. Is a soldier really dead if no one but his family and friends know about it? From the standpoint of national leadership, the answer (sadly) is no.

Then there’s the draft. In Vietnam, the threat of draft was pervasive; whether you were a potential draftee or a family member of a potential draftee, the draft affected just about everybody in one way or another. Not so with the modern system. The W. Bush administration learned its lesson well. Whereas the Vietnam era administrations believed calling up the National Guard and Reserves would inspire popular resentment, the 2001-2009 administration correctly surmised that the public reaction to having reservists called up would be far less pronounced than it was for the Vietnam-era draft. After all, only volunteers are going.

The public mood regarding Afghanistan reflects the idea that the Taliban was involved in 9-11. People who wanted us out of Iraq support ongoing operations in Afghanistan. The W. Bush administration shrewdly tried to connect Iraq to the threat of terror attacks to inspire the same level of support. The point here is that the public perception of why we’re there has to be factored into the equation.

Of course, sheer numbers are important. This is one reason the management of the wars has been so wretchedly ineffective. Winning means fighting, but fighting effectively means using the infantry effectively, which in turn means accepting a higher casualty rate than not using the infantry effectively. We’ve traded victory in the median term for keeping casualties low over an extended period.

Of course, comparing Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan to an invasion of Taiwan is comparing very unlike things. A high intensity conflict on Taiwan will reach is denouement before US public opinion becomes meaningful, unless nuclear weapons are used. China might be able to accept more casualties than the US, but she’s going to take more casualties. The question is where the breaking point for each nation is and who gets there first. Let’s not forget that the PLA is now made up of men born under the one-child policy. An invasion of Taiwan along the lines described will be fought on the ground by the PLA and the Taiwanese Army. Chinese soldiers, Communist and otherwise, will do the overwhelming majority of the fighting and dying. In the air and at sea, the US has a bigger role to play. However, the loss of life in air and naval operations is significantly lower than during major ground operations.

Well I would assume the Chinese would fail in any attempt to take Taiwan because they don't have the logistical capability to succesfully invade Taiwan, and their airforce and navy is not up to taking on the Americans.

I honestly don’t know how true this is at this point in history. However, it seems to me that the PLAAF would be operating from its own bases against US forces off the coast. Under these conditions, numbers surely count for something. As for logistics, a nation with the resources of China surely could find a way to transport materiel to Taiwan once the sea lanes were made safe—if the sea lanes could be made safe enough.


Webstral

[LBraden]

This seems to have WAY gone off the original topic.

But here we go, I do recall this as 1975, if that is mistaken, correct me please.

During an "electronic wargame" that the US was running on a super computer of a "Limited Nuclear Exchange" war (probably similar to T2k), they found that the US lost EVERY time they did it, no matter what they did to the variables of it.
It was found afterwards that it was because the US did not have a proper logistical support, something that the UK had learnt from France around 100 years earlier during the Crimean war.

[95th Rifleman]

The idea that if something is done quickly enough then the West will accept it, didn't work for the Argentinians. The Brits were quite happy to let the Junta butcher as many of their own people as they wanted to and still sell them arms, but put twenty thousand conscripts of a sheep infested rock in the South Atlantic and the Task Force sailed.

Taiwan is far more important to the US than the Falklands were to the UK so I seriously doubt if the Chinese seriously think that if they can take Taiwan whilst the Americans are napping that the US will go, "Ah well, nothing we can do now.." and wander away.

We couldn't do it again.

If the Argies can overwhelm the Falklands garrison, they get to keep the islands.

[Targan]

But there is so much more at stake in a fight over Taiwan than who ends up controlling Taiwan, isn't there? Completely irrespective of who ends up "winning" that fight, a shooting war between the US and China would be devastating for the economies of both countries and would likely crash the global economy.

It would put my country in a truly awful position too - we'd have to choose between losing our economic prosperity (China's demand for raw materials is the only thing sparing Australia from the global economic downturn that's affecting every other western economy) or turning our backs on the strongest and closest military ally we've ever had.

[ShadoWarrior]

It would put my country in a truly awful position too - we'd have to choose between losing our economic prosperity (China's demand for raw materials is the only thing sparing Australia from the global economic downturn that's affecting every other western economy) or turning our backs on the strongest and closest military ally we've ever had.
That's actually a false choice. In any Sino-American war there would be an economic blockade of China. If Australia tried to sit it out as a 'neutral', and continue to supply war-critical materials to China, Australia would be subjected to the effects of the blockade. In effect, Australia would become at war with the US. That's not a situation that I think anyone down under would choose.

Plus, after a crashed global economy, Australia couldn't expect to escape economically unscathed even if she somehow miraculously avoided anything bad happening to her from choosing the wrong (Chinese) side. :(

Any Sino-American war would be very bad for the whole world, and especially catastrophic for all Pacific Rim nations.

[RN7]

Has anybody forgoten that the Chinese military is actually fairly crap. In numbers its army is the largest in the world, its navy is the second largest in the world, and its air force is the third largest in the world, but they haven't got the logistical capability to deploy their army overseas in significant numbers, and the air and naval equipment is not better than any of their neighbours, in facts the Japanese and South Korean air force and navy are more advanced.

Despite what you read about China developing secret stealth fighters and super aircraft carriers, the best they have has either been bought or built under license from Russia, or is simply knocked off Russian and other foreign technology produced semi-legally in China. If the Chinese navy and air force went head to head with the US Navy and USAF it would be hammered, end of story.

[ShadoWarrior]

The PLA was crap back in the 50s, too, and they still kicked our asses in Korea. Numbers do matter. Even if each individual plane, tank, and ship is a decade or more less advanced than its opponents, enough of them will cause a world of hurt. Sure, we'll get a 6 to 1 or 10 to 1 kill ratio in the air, somewhat less than that at sea or on land. But when the enemy has a 10 or 20 to 1 advantage in numbers...

And it doesn't matter where they get their stuff from. So what if they don't design the stuff themselves, but get it from the Russians (and steal it from everyone else)? The Argentinians were using bought planes and missiles when they sank British ships in the Falklands. America's superior technology, training, and doctrine can only go so far to counterbalance enemy numbers. And that's under ideal conditions, which also assumes that no one on the US side makes a major blunder.

China isn't Iraq. Their units won't just roll over and surrender when they run into the big tough Americans with their fancy toys. And the Chinese integrated air defense system is second only to that of Russia's. The US got a very painful taste of it back during Vietnam, and they've kept up with tech improvements ever since. The Chinese aren't stupid. They know what the US has, and will be prepared to deal with it.

US units would be at the end of a very long logistical tether. China would be fighting in their front yard. It's so close that logistics isn't really an issue for the invaders.

As Webstral said, the main calculation is whether the Chinese are willing to take the economic hit. That they haven't been willing to, or risk a confrontation with the nuclear-armed US, is all that keeps Taiwan free. Even so, Taiwan has been fairly well Finlandized.

[RN7]

The rise of China is probably the most significant event of the 21st Century.

The figures and statistics coming out of China are staggering. Its economy is the second largest in the world by any measure, and is growing fast enough that it may overtake America within a decade. It is already the worlds largest exporter, it overtook America as the worlds largest manufacturer in 2010, and the industrial statistics are mind bogling.

It produces more steel than the rest of the world combined, it is the worlds largest ship builder, it produces more vehicles than North America, Japan and the whole of Europe, and it overtook America as the largest car market in the world. The combined value and trading of Chinese stock markets are already the biggest in the world outside of the massive stock trading of New York City. Chinese seaports dominate the annual listings of the worlds busiest ports, and the size of its air cargo and passenger transport statistics is growing so rapidly that it is beginning to rival America's. Only America produces and consumes more electricity, and only America consumes more oil, and China may even overtake America in electricity and oil consumption by the end of the decade.

Remarkably this has been achieved in a communist country where you can only vote for one political party, were human rights, work practices and laws and ideals that we take for granted are absent, and were people are only allowed to have one child throughout most of the country.

Why has this happened? I would say because the rest of the world, the Western and developed world in particular, has turned a blind eye to what China does in its own country, and Western and Japanese companies have heavily invested in the Chinese economy to produce manufactured good for export to the developed world, attracted by the low cost of Chinese labour and almost non-existant work practices and labour laws, and the articially low value of the Chinese Yuan. All of this has allowed China and the Chinese elites to build up massive cash reserves and buy some of the debt of other countries to stimulate the development of China's economy and preserve the status quo.

Will anyone try and encourage democracy in China and help the lot of the Chinese people. Probably not because it will encourage the Chinese people to want more rights, which in turn will lead to higher pay, better work practices, new laws, the exposure of corruption and more openess and accountability which the Chinese government would be hostile too. Ultimately it could lead a similar situation to the Soviet Union in the early 1990's. Large parts of China are hostile to Peking and even the dominant Han Chinese ethnic group, Tibet and the Uyghur's are already in open rebellion against Chinese domination. All this would be bad for business as it wouldn't be cheap to build things in China anymore, and all the new shiny factories would have to close and move somehere else, which would leave China royally screwed.

So for the forseable future we will see the continual emergence of China. Maybe not as rapidly as the we have seen in the last decade and this growth is not sustainable for ever. However China will turn to its military and science to increase its international power and prestige. Technologicaly and logistically it can't match America, but its power will steadily grow and its main aim will be to challenge American hegemony in the Pacific and become powerful enough to deter American forces.

For the Asia-Pacific region it could be a traumatic experience. They will all be happy to make as much money as they can from the emergent Chinese super-power. The Russians will be happy to make as much money as they can from China, selling them raw materials, arms, military and space technology, and will be happy to align themselves with China as long as they don't increase their nuclear capability to much. However the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese among others will move closer into America's defence umbrella, as China will become to powerful for them to confront on their own. India may also allign itself closer with America as it will be China's largest rival in Asia, and Australia might find itself in an akward position due to its huge commodity exports to China and its close relations with America.

What will this mean for America. It might loose its number one position as the worlds largest economy to China in the not so distant future. But America will remain a richer country, as its far better developed than and its wealth is far more evenly distributed. Its economy is also inherently more stable and also more infuental, and is far less dependant on the outside world. Europe, Japan and the developed world will remain its main competitors in high-tech industries, although others including China will increasingly emerge. America will remain the preminant military power. Its logistical capabilities and global supply and intel network is far superior to any other country, and its military-industrial complex and level of technology may be to great for anyone else to ever fully match.

However I could be wrong. The rise in value of the Yuan, inflation, changing market forces, unpopularity of China's government in the developed world forcing multinationals to relocate their factories, the growth of democracy, a Far Eastern Arms race and an invasion of Taiwan could rapidly throw a spanner into China.

[95th Rifleman]

That's actually a false choice. In any Sino-American war there would be an economic blockade of China. If Australia tried to sit it out as a 'neutral', and continue to supply war-critical materials to China, Australia would be subjected to the effects of the blockade. In effect, Australia would become at war with the US. That's not a situation that I think anyone down under would choose.

Plus, after a crashed global economy, Australia couldn't expect to escape economically unscathed even if she somehow miraculously avoided anything bad happening to her from choosing the wrong (Chinese) side. :(

Any Sino-American war would be very bad for the whole world, and especially catastrophic for all Pacific Rim nations.

How is China the "wrong" side exactly?

There are allot of assumptions in play here, the biggest (and oldest) is that America are the good guys and people should always take their side.

America is on the way out, her economy is shot and she is being bled white by stupid conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. China is an up and coming power that is playing the empire game the same way the British used to, they are buying their empire. Look at their interests in Africa, they are following the classic british model for economic domination.

If things go hot it would be better for nations in the pacific area to either openly side with China or to quietly side with them.

[RN7]

How is China the "wrong" side exactly?

There are allot of assumptions in play here, the biggest (and oldest) is that America are the good guys and people should always take their side.

America is on the way out, her economy is shot and she is being bled white by stupid conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. China is an up and coming power that is playing the empire game the same way the British used to, they are buying their empire. Look at their interests in Africa, they are following the classic british model for economic domination.

If things go hot it would be better for nations in the pacific area to either openly side with China or to quietly side with them.


Well I wouldn't quite agree with all that. America has been involved in bigger overseas wars since 1945; Korea and Vietnam, and also had to contend with a far more militarly and technologically powerful competitor than China; the Soviet Union. America's economy is not doing so great at the moment, but neither is anyone else in the developed world with the exception of Australia which is making a lot of money selling commodities to China.

Chinese military power to all intensive purposes is absent outside of the Far East, whereas America's is global. China's involvement in Africa or anywhere else is all about giving money to the local regimes and securing resources for export to China. Third World governements obviously prefer Chinese money as there are no strings attached, such as human rights and democratic reform linked with development aid.

China produces a huge amount of consumables, but much of what is exported is produced by non-Chinese corporations who located their factories to China to take advantage of China's low coast labour, non-existant labour laws and the artifically low value of the Yuan for export. In most high technology industries; pharmaceuticals, aircraft and spacecraft, medical, precision and optical instruments, communication equipment, high end weaponry, business and computing machinery, indigenous Chinese companies are either absent in these industries or not considered major competitors to the main focal areas of these technologies; North America, Europe and Japan. In medium technology industries; electrical machinery, motor vehicles, ship building, transport equipment, chemicals and chemical products, metalurgy, machinery and equipment, most of what China produces goes into the Chinese market or produced for mass export to developed countries by either foreign owned companies or by Chinese companies who produce it for foreign owned companies.

[ShadoWarrior]

There are allot of assumptions in play here, the biggest (and oldest) is that America are the good guys and people should always take their side.
Ask China's neighbors who'd they prefer to be friends with. Don't forget that China has fought wars with almost every neighboring country in the past 50 years.

China is an up and coming power that is playing the empire game the same way the British used to, they are buying their empire. Look at their interests in Africa, they are following the classic british model for economic domination.
Yes, that turned out very well for the British in the end, didn't it? The Brits are still resented like hell all over Africa.

If things go hot it would be better for nations in the pacific area to either openly side with China or to quietly side with them.
That's rather short-sighted thinking. Of course, thinking short-sided is what gets people (and countries) into trouble in the first place. BTW, what you suggest is what most European and many other countries around the world did with regards to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That turned out well, didn't it?

[95th Rifleman]

Yes, that turned out very well for the British in the end, didn't it? The Brits are still resented like hell all over Africa.


Yeah, we don't have any commonwealth of nations and African nations don't contribute to the British army........

Be careful with generalisations there mate. The Empire declined after fighting two world wars but for the most part it was an economic rather than military empire which is why we are still on good terms with most of our old colonies and teritories. 53 seperate nations form the British commonwelath, 19 of them are African.

I'd also be careful about throwing around Hitler comparisons. The only nations in the past few decades to invade another soverieghn nation are America (Iraq and Afghanistan) and Russia (Georgia).

[95th Rifleman]

Well I wouldn't quite agree with all that. America has been involved in bigger overseas wars since 1945; Korea and Vietnam, and also had to contend with a far more militarly and technologically powerful competitor than China; the Soviet Union.

To be fair, America and Russia where never actualy tested against each other. They both fought the other's export weapons and equipment in other conflicts but the US and Russia never went head to head and tested their full strength, thankfully.

[Webstral]

It would put my country in a truly awful position too - we'd have to choose between losing our economic prosperity (China's demand for raw materials is the only thing sparing Australia from the global economic downturn that's affecting every other western economy) or turning our backs on the strongest and closest military ally we've ever had.

For better or for worse, if our imagined PRC invasion of Taiwan occurs within the next five years, Australia will find herself obliged to side with the US. Once the economic blockade descends on China, the Chinese demand for raw materials will dry up very quickly. Once the USN puts its blackade of China's ports in place, Australia's raw materials will have trouble moving into the country anyway. Even if some enterprising types arrange to have goods for China offloaded in Southeast Asia or Vladivostok, B-2s dropping precision-guided munitions will keep China's rail links with the outside world from functioning as intended. Sorry, my friend. If it comes to a shooting war between the US and the PRC in the near future, there is no money to be made siding with China. We'll talk again in ten years and see where things stand, though.

The good news is that Beijing seems to understand this fact. The analogy comparing modern China to rising Britain is an interesting one. Why take by conquest what you can buy and have other governments' troops safeguard for you? It seems to me that China is doing a very good job of keeping her saber-rattling much quieter than her wallet-based transactions.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

The British proved that an empire based on trade and economic factors is better and more effective than one based on military conquest. When you study the history of China you see they adopted a very similar approach during their own history so it's not surprising they are doing the same today.

[ShadoWarrior]

Be careful with generalisations there mate. The Empire declined after fighting two world wars but for the most part it was an economic rather than military empire which is why we are still on good terms with most of our old colonies and teritories. 53 seperate nations form the British commonwelath, 19 of them are African.I've been to Africa. I'm speaking from experience.

I'd also be careful about throwing around Hitler comparisons. The only nations in the past few decades to invade another soverieghn nation are America (Iraq and Afghanistan) and Russia (Georgia).
Iraq vs. Kuwait. Iraq vs. Iran. Soviet Union vs. Afghanistan. Israel vs. Lebanon (repeatedly). There are others in the 80s and 90s. And a great many others if I go back another decade or two to the 60s and 70s.

It wasn't a comparison against Hitler. You completely (and I think deliberately) missed the point. Which was about appeasement. Something that America has never done (except, arguably, with the Chicoms, whom the US kowtows much too much). Nor, to my knowledge, has Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or Canada ever been an appeaser of dictatorial regimes. The same cannot be said of pretty much every other European, South American, African, and Asian nation. If being reminded of some of the less virtuous things nations other than the US have done, it's only fair considering how quick some folks seem to be about pointing out America's many flaws (which I won't dispute, since we do have them). Some nations, which exact ones I'll respectfully decline to point out, have a very long history of appeasement.

[95th Rifleman]

I've been to Africa. I'm speaking from experience.


Iraq vs. Kuwait. Iraq vs. Iran. Soviet Union vs. Afghanistan. Israel vs. Lebanon (repeatedly). There are others in the 80s and 90s. And a great many others if I go back another decade or two to the 60s and 70s.

It wasn't a comparison against Hitler. You completely (and I think deliberately) missed the point. Which was about appeasement. Something that America has never done (except, arguably, with the Chicoms, whom the US kowtows much too much). Nor, to my knowledge, has Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or Canada ever been an appeaser of dictatorial regimes. The same cannot be said of pretty much every other European, South American, African, and Asian nation. If being reminded of some of the less virtuous things nations other than the US have done, it's only fair considering how quick some folks seem to be about pointing out America's many flaws (which I won't dispute, since we do have them). Some nations, which exact ones I'll respectfully decline to point out, have a very long history of appeasement.

Not arguing the appeasemnt point, folks should of listened to Churchill while they where busy giving Hitler poland.

I'm always amused when people make broad generalisations and say "i've been there" I'm assuming you've visited every African country and spoken to a broad demographic? Or maybe I should visit Somalia and then base all of Africa's view of the US based on how folks view them there?

America doesn't get into appeasement? So we won't mention how America has appeased Israel for the last few decades and allowed them to do what they want to Palestinian civilians going as far as to use their security council veto to back their constant violation of Un reslutions? We won't mention how America ignored Saddam when he was happily killing Kurds, as long as he was America's puppy and providing a pawn to match soviet-backed Iran.

America is as guilty of appasement as any other European nation mate, it's hypocritical to claim that they havn't engaged in that little hobby.

[ShadoWarrior]

I'm always amused when people make broad generalisations and say "i've been there" I'm assuming you've visited every African country and spoken to a broad demographic? Or maybe I should visit Somalia and then base all of Africa's view of the US based on how folks view them there?Somalia is one of the countries I haven't been to. I have, however, been to most of Britain's former African colonies. In the 80s. The seething resentment amongst the locals was quite noticeable whenever there were any Brit ex-pats in the vicinity. And only the Brits. My Canadian, Turkish, and (oddly enough) German compatriots weren't given the same evil eye.

America doesn't get into appeasement? So we won't mention how America has appeased Israel for the last few decades and allowed them to do what they want to Palestinian civilians going as far as to use their security council veto to back their constant violation of Un reslutions?
America doesn't appease Israel. It uses Israel as a proxy. There's a huge difference. Doesn't make the behavior any more acceptable. But it's a different sort of relationship than that of appeasement, and the motives are very much different. China uses the DPRK as a proxy, which in turn exports arms to many nations in economic or military conflict with the US. Saudi Arabia uses other Gulf states as proxies. Iran uses Syria as a proxy, which in turn uses Lebanon and various terrorist groups. Cuba uses Venezuela. And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Israel appeases the US. Sometimes. (Other times they're perfectly willing to do whatever the hell they want, and damn the consequences.) Canada, on occasion, appeases the US. As does, to a lesser extent, the UK and Australia. Vietnam appeases China (having no desire to fight another war with China like the one they fought in 1975). A whole slew of nations appease Russia, for fear of Russia waging economic or military war against them.

Most of the world appeases the US to some extent. The big difference between how and why nations appease the US versus how/why they do so to other nations is that the US is, as has been mentioned by others here more than once, the world's economic and military leader. As such, nations often want something from the US, such as favorable economic deals, or military support or whatever. The US has not invaded anyone because they didn't kiss our ass (except Panama). Those that appease Russia and China do so out of fear, not out of a desire for a reward. It's a subtle, but important difference.

We won't mention how America ignored Saddam when he was happily killing Kurds, as long as he was America's puppy and providing a pawn to match soviet-backed Iran.
Yes, let's not get into that. Not one of our finer moments. Bastard Bush family and their politics.

America is as guilty of appasement as any other European nation mate, it's hypocritical to claim that they havn't engaged in that little hobby.
I'm not sure that you understand the definition of appeasement. It's not as broad a concept as you seem to think it is.

[Webstral]

I'm not sure that you understand the definition of appeasement. It's not as broad a concept as you seem to think it is.

Appeasement is one of those terms which has degenerated into a form of slander in modern terminology, thanks to Mr. Chamberlain. In many cases, the term "appeasement" is used as an opposite to "confronting". I agree that the relationship with Israel is more complex than appeasement. This is not to say that the US-Israeli relationship doesn't have its infuriating elements. However, no good analysis can misapply important terms.

Webstral

[Raellus]

To get us back on topic, two things bear keeping in mind.

First, the U.S. is capable of projecting military power throughout the globe but they are becoming less and less capable of paying for the capability to do so. We can barely afford (I would contend that we can't afford) the two "low intensity conflicts" we're currently neck deep in.

The Chinese may not have a true blue water navy like that of the U.S., but they don't really need one. Logistically speaking, the Chinese, in most places in Asia- Taiwan specifically- would be essentially operating with interior lines of supply, whereas the United Space would be have to supply its naval forces over much greater distances. To do so is not cheap.

Look at a Jane's Warship Recognition guide from about 10 years ago and then look at the most up-to-date edition. China's navy is growing in size and capability every year. They can afford to close the "naval gap" with the United States. We can't afford to keep the distance. Like it or not, the Chinese military is slowly but surely catching up to those of the West. And, quantity has a quality all its own. Add to that the fact that any conceivable future war between China and the U.S. will most likely be fought in their backyard and I can't really understand all the jingoistic self-congratulation that is flying about here. It's a painful reality to face but that doesn't make it any less real. The Eagle is slowly landing and the Dragon is slowly rising.

[RN7]

To get us back on topic, two things bear keeping in mind.

First, the U.S. is capable of projecting military power throughout the globe but they are becoming less and less capable of paying for the capability to do so. We can barely afford (I would contend that we can't afford) the two "low intensity conflicts" we're currently neck deep in.

The Chinese may not have a true blue water navy like that of the U.S., but they don't really need one. Logistically speaking, the Chinese, in most places in Asia- Taiwan specifically- would be essentially operating with interior lines of supply, whereas the United Space would be have to supply its naval forces over much greater distances. To do so is not cheap.

Look at a Jane's Warship Recognition guide from about 10 years ago and then look at the most up-to-date edition. China's navy is growing in size and capability every year. They can afford to close the "missile gap" with the U.S. We can't afford to keep the distance. Like it or not, the Chinese military is slowly but surely catching up to those in the West. And, quantity has a quality all its own. Add to that the fact that any conceivable future war between China and the U.S. will most likely be fought in their backyard and I can't really understand all the jingoistic self-congratulations that are flying about here. It's a painful reality to face but that doesn't make it any less real. The Eagle is slowly landing and the Dragon is slowly rising.


America actually spends a higher part its GDP on defence than any of the other main powers in the world at the moment, so in these testing economic times the strain is beginning to show.

$US Billion
698. USA (4.8%)
119. China (2.1%)
061. France (2.5%)
059. Britain (2.7%)
058. Russia (4.0%)
054. Japan (1.0%)
047. Germany (1.4%)
045. Saudi Arabia (11.2%)
041. India (2.8%)
037. Italy (1.8%)
033. Brazil (1.6%)
027. South Korea (2.8%)

But America also polices the world; fights two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, basing air, land and naval forces in Germany, Britain, South Korea, Japan and elswhere to guarantee the security of Europe and Asia, funds a blue fleet navy that has a battle tonnage larger than the next 13 navies combined, has a marine corps roughly the same size as the air and ground forces of a major Western European country, and maintains a strategic nuclear deterent many times greater than its needs to be. Is it any wonder that America is finding it hard to pay for all this.

If I was Obama I'd tell the Europeans and Asian allies, particularly Germany and Japan to go and pay for their own defence, and contribute more to the security of the world. If America cuts its defence spending to the same level as Britain (who defence spending is higher than average), it would trim the defence budget by nearly $US 350 billion, which would still be three times the official Chinese defence budget (I'd love to know what the real unofficial Chinese defence budget is tho).

[95th Rifleman]

But America also polices the world; fights two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, basing air, land and naval forces in Germany, Britain, South Korea, Japan and elswhere to guarantee the security of Europe and Asia, funds a blue fleet navy that has a battle tonnage larger than the next 13 navies combined, has a marine corps roughly the same size as the air and ground forces of a major Western European country, and maintains a strategic nuclear deterent many times greater than its needs to be. Is it any wonder that America is finding it hard to pay for all this.


America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself. The US bases in Germany are NOT there to guarantee European security, they are there to provide America with the ability to supply and project military force, for insance Afghanistan. The Britis are already reducing our military in Germany (the RAF pulled out years ago). The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.

The British don't actualy care to be honest and the defense cuts mean that the British military will be used as a supporting force in future conflicts rather than a leading element. We are currently putting together a joint Anglo/French force which is considered to be the first steps for an EU military.
It can be argued that South Korea need the US presence to keep those North korean lunatics in check.

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.

America spends so much money on defence because America STILL sees itself as the country that represents all that is good and great about Western democracy, capitalism and culture and STILL sees the rest of the world as little Americans just waiting to be rescued from their regimes. Afghanistan and Iraq are failures in this philosophy.

[ShadoWarrior]

America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.
It happens to be true. Whenever crap happens somewhere, the first nation that people look towards to shoulder the burden of committing troops, materiel, and/or immense amounts of money to make the problem go away is the US. Or do you need to be reminded of the Balkans in the 90s, right in the EU's back yard, where no one could be bothered to take the initiative? Twice.

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself.
We're all sure that it can. Which is why it's so irritating to the other NATO member nations that Germany hasn't done much to honor its NATO commitments recently.

The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.That's mischaracterizing the nature of the protests. What a minority of the people desire is for the bases on Okinawa (not mainland Japan) to be moved someplace less disruptive, noise-wise and aesthetically. The Japanese government does not want the US to leave, nor do most of the citizens. The Japanese want the warm fuzzy feeling they get from having a lot of troops close at hand to protect them that are not bound by their pacifist constitution. They also like the amount of money those bases pump into their local economies. When the Philippines had the US close its bases there, the economic losses in the areas where the bases were was quite damaging. Something that they failed to consider in their rush to kick the Americans out. The Japanese government isn't as short-sighted.

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.
Most of those UN so-called peacekeeping missions involve troops that are rarely willing to fire their weapons to protect anyone. Not because the troops are cowards, but because the UN leadership makes ROE that are worse than useless. The UN is a bad joke.

[RN7]

America polices the world? This statement is just alittle bit jingoistic.

For a start the Germans are actualy quite pissed at other nations being based in their country now that there is no soviet threat. Unified Germany can look after herself. The US bases in Germany are NOT there to guarantee European security, they are there to provide America with the ability to supply and project military force, for insance Afghanistan. The Britis are already reducing our military in Germany (the RAF pulled out years ago). The japanese have been protesting the American military presence on their territory for some time now.

The British don't actualy care to be honest and the defense cuts mean that the British military will be used as a supporting force in future conflicts rather than a leading element. We are currently putting together a joint Anglo/French force which is considered to be the first steps for an EU military.
It can be argued that South Korea need the US presence to keep those North korean lunatics in check.

As for policing the world, when you look at the UN peacekeeping missions you'll see allot more nations involved in police actions, especialy Europe.

America spends so much money on defence because America STILL sees itself as the country that represents all that is good and great about Western democracy, capitalism and culture and STILL sees the rest of the world as little Americans just waiting to be rescued from their regimes. Afghanistan and Iraq are failures in this philosophy.

So when a rogue state or dictator invades or threaten a neighbouring country, or starts causing trouble by funding terrorism, disrupting shipping, or stoking insurection outside of its border, who deters it? China? an Anglo/French force?

I can remember the Germans and others complaining about US forces based in their country when the Red Army was breeding down their necks. But sure the US should pull its forces out of Europe and Japan, and let Europe and Japan pay for their own defence. I'm sure the Germans and Japanese will be protesting about the taxes being raised or services been cut to support it, and when the Japanese military can't provide a large enough deterent to stop China from increasing its nuclear arsenal, or deter North Korea from developing missiles which can hit every city in Japan, or over-running South Korea etc, I suppose the Japanese will be asking where are the Americans.

UN peacekeepers are sent into countries were wars have already started, but do they stop them from happening in the first place. Also I think you will find that Britain is one of the major opponents of the creation of a EU military force, because there are always squabbles about who's in charge, countries have different agendas, and its tends to exclude the Americans who can sort out problems quicker than anyone else.

[dragoon500ly]

The world is a changing, and the U.S. needs to change along with it.

NATO has changed from a defensive alliance to an alliance in search of some kind of purpose. And in spite of the spin placed on it by various politicans, I really can't see why NATO is in Afghanistan, last time I checked, the Afghans were neither in the north nor on the Atlantic.

Like many Americans, I supported the war in Afghanistan, at least in the early years, after all it was directed towards al-Quida and the Taliban. I have never been happy with any of the excuses offered for invading Iraq. Other than a vague feeling that George W just wanted to finish off what his daddy couldn't do. And for the (mis)conduct of Cheney and Rumsfield....both of them should have been dropped, naked, into Iraq and let them show us how to get'er done!

The real failure of U.S. foreign policy has been its continued support for regimes that don't have the best intrests of the U.S. at heart. Why should we pump billions in foreign aid to every pissant country that turns right around and slams the U.S. in the UN? Or even worse, provides support to the very terrorists that attack the U.S.? Don't get me wrong, providing aid in the wake of a natural disaster is one thing....providing aid that is channeled straight to al-Quida?

The U.S., like all too many nations, has problems that needs to be fixed at home. There should be no homeless in the greatest republic. Our education system should be the envy of the world, health care should be available to all and at reasonable prices. Our factories should be producing products sold around the world. People should realize that there is no better friend nor a more deadly foe than the U.S.

We, as a people, have lost our focus, our pride in what it means to be an American. And we are paying for that today.

The days of the last super power are indeed, numbered.

[ShadoWarrior]

The U.S., like all too many nations, has problems that needs to be fixed at home. There should be no homeless in the greatest republic. Our education system should be the envy of the world, health care should be available to all and at reasonable prices. Our factories should be producing products sold around the world.
I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post. But I have to comment on the quoted portion above. As long as the US treats healthcare as a for-profit enterprise, it will never be affordable. And it will eventually cause the entire economy to implode. As for US factories, what factories? Most of them are now in other countries. As long as there are no laws barring US companies from relocating factories to where labor is cheaper, the problem will only continue to worsen, and more and more Americans will lose their jobs. And not just factories, but services too. My last job as a programmer was outsourced to India back in '02.

[dragoon500ly]

Isn't that my point?

We need to fix healthcare, nobody argues, the only question is how and while I will admit that perhaps the shine does shine through Obama's pants....his healthcare plan is, at best, poorly thought out and poorly implantmented and yes, I'm being chartiable!

The U.S. doesn't need to be outsourcing its factories....John Deere, to name just one, finally moved its corporate headquarters to a certain island nation with favorable tax laws....the last of its major factories moved south of the border....and to add insult to injury, they managed to negotiate major tax cuts from both fed and state governments, not to mention a nice contract to supply the fed government. My point is that if the U.S. is not good enough for your company to produce its product here...then there should be ZERO tax cuts for your company...and as for you getting a nice federal contract...err, well, not just no but HELL NO!

Instead of giving a certain country that we know is providing aid and comfort to certain terrorist organizations...to the tune of over 30 BILLION dollars....that tap should be turned off and the money used to fund education, pay off the debt...things that benefit America.

Why should Americans lay down their lives, spend their country into debt in support of regimes that are more than willing to stab us in the back? Or stand firmly with both hands outstretched to take American aid, and then walk their tails into the UN and damn the U.S. as imperialist, war-mongering pigs? Let's take care of ourselves, our allies, our friends....and those who have proven themselves to be our enemies...do without our aid.

[ShadoWarrior]

Right on!

[95th Rifleman]

While for different reasons, i agree with your statement dragoon500ly

[Webstral]

I read something interesting the other day that sheds some new light on the carrier:

"Moreover, since the white barbarians came by ship, the traditiopnal Chinese defensive strategy was completely reversed. The sea now took the place of the steppe. China's frontier was no longer on the Great Wall or at the Jade Gate in Kansu, but at Canton and Shanghai. Age-old conceptions had to be reversed accordingly" (Fairbank, 1972, p. 142).

The Chinese may be practicing nothing more than what the West Germans called "forward defense" back in the day. The further out you push your defensive lines, the more ground you can give up during a fighting withdrawal.

Fairbank, John K. (1972). The United States and China (3rd Ed). Harvard Univeristy Press: Massachusetts.

[RN7]

I read something interesting the other day that sheds some new light on the carrier:

"Moreover, since the white barbarians came by ship, the traditiopnal Chinese defensive strategy was completely reversed. The sea now took the place of the steppe. China's frontier was no longer on the Great Wall or at the Jade Gate in Kansu, but at Canton and Shanghai. Age-old conceptions had to be reversed accordingly" (Fairbank, 1972, p. 142).

The Chinese may be practicing nothing more than what the West Germans called "forward defense" back in the day. The further out you push your defensive lines, the more ground you can give up during a fighting withdrawal.

Fairbank, John K. (1972). The United States and China (3rd Ed). Harvard Univeristy Press: Massachusetts.


I think the Germans and the Japanese had the same idea in WW2, but they just called it Empire and Lebensraum.

[Webstral]

I think the Germans and the Japanese had the same idea in WW2, but they just called it Empire and Lebensraum.

I know that sort of thing is fun to write, but demonizing the Chinese a priori serves no good purpose. By doing so create a lens through which events are interpreted to fit an operating premise; i.e., the Chinese are up to no good. They may in fact be up to no good. Stampeding to that conclusion hastens conflict and makes the avoidable inevitable.

[RN7]

I know that sort of thing is fun to write, but demonizing the Chinese a priori serves no good purpose. By doing so create a lens through which events are interpreted to fit an operating premise; i.e., the Chinese are up to no good. They may in fact be up to no good. Stampeding to that conclusion hastens conflict and makes the avoidable inevitable.

Well if they still consider Westerners to be "white barbarians" as you quoted, then you would have to wonder what their motives are.

[Webstral]

Cultural bias does not equal wars of aggression or any of the crimes of which Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty. Don't get me wrong: the Chinese ain't fluffy bunnies. They are hard people with an agenda. Nonetheless, it's useful to understand where they are coming from in interpreting their actions.

I'm guilty of not giving sufficient context to my quoted material. This passage describes the situation in the 1800's, when Europeans started making serious inroads into China's economy. I used it in a current context because the Chinese remember their history. One could argue that the economic explosion in China is a direct result of the hard lessons learned by China at the hands of the West. Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower. China is determined not to be victimized again, and China wants her place in the sun.

[Targan]

Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower.
And, often, ruthlessness.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't think that China poses a military threat to most of the countries in the world right now. Maybe in 10-15 years when oil supplies have gotten a lot shorter, it will get "interesting." But right now, the biggest threat from China is economic. They are constantly manipulating the worth of the yuan (I think that's the name of their currency), giving it an artificially high or low value depending upon what's better for them at the moment. They undermine countries' economies by selling them cheap goods and keeping their manufacturing costs artificially low so that factories in the receiving countries close or have high operating costs and correspondingly high prices for their goods.

[RN7]

Cultural bias does not equal wars of aggression or any of the crimes of which Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty. Don't get me wrong: the Chinese ain't fluffy bunnies. They are hard people with an agenda. Nonetheless, it's useful to understand where they are coming from in interpreting their actions.

Tibet, Xinjiang!


I'm guilty of not giving sufficient context to my quoted material. This passage describes the situation in the 1800's, when Europeans started making serious inroads into China's economy. I used it in a current context because the Chinese remember their history. One could argue that the economic explosion in China is a direct result of the hard lessons learned by China at the hands of the West. Wars are won by powers that have the right combination of wealth, technology, and manpower. China is determined not to be victimized again, and China wants her place in the sun.

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

[Targan]

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

I guess. But more recently than the Japanese or Mongols have fought China, we had that iddy biddy disagreement we call the Korean War, and that never actually ended. I know that didn't involve western troops on Chinese soil but the Chinese clearly regard North Korea as being vital as a buffer-state.

[RN7]

I don't think that China poses a military threat to most of the countries in the world right now. Maybe in 10-15 years when oil supplies have gotten a lot shorter, it will get "interesting." But right now, the biggest threat from China is economic. They are constantly manipulating the worth of the yuan (I think that's the name of their currency), giving it an artificially high or low value depending upon what's better for them at the moment. They undermine countries' economies by selling them cheap goods and keeping their manufacturing costs artificially low so that factories in the receiving countries close or have high operating costs and correspondingly high prices for their goods.

Absolutely the Chinese government is totally manipulating market forces to its own advantage, and its eroding America's manufacturing base and putting Americans out of work. Many economists also believe that China is cooking its books as regards to keeping up the international impression that its economy is booming when the reality is far different.

Until recently Chinese economic expansion was dependent on cheap exports to America. But with the global recession the Chinese government decided to switch its focus to developing a consumer based economy even though China is not a consumer based economy in the sense found in the developed world due to its very low standard of living. A massive build up of infrastructure and housing development, skyscrapers, shopping malls etc but most Chinese cant afford to live or shop in them. It has however kept Chinese factory orders running artificialy very high which gives the impression that their economy is expanding at a higher rate than it actually is. Something has to give as even a centraly planned economy such as China cant hide and keep this up given China's current massive exposure to the international economic system.

I suspect that China is bracing itself for the next US presidential race as the economy is going to be by far the biggest issue. I'd say that China is hoping that Obama will remain president as he seem reluctant to tackle this problem. A new president would cause real problems for China if tarrifs or taxes were imposed on Chinese imports to America, particulary on imports produced in China by American companies which would basicaly devastate Chinese export based industries.

[RN7]

I guess. But more recently than the Japanese or Mongols have fought China, we had that iddy biddy disagreement we call the Korean War, and that never actually ended. I know that didn't involve western troops on Chinese soil but the Chinese clearly regard North Korea as being vital as a buffer-state.

But was the Korean War realy a Chinese war against America or was it a Russian backed Communist proxy war against America?

If the Chinese nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War a few years earlier would they have realy went to war with America and other western forces in the Korean Peninsula. Shortly after the Korean war ended (finished actually fighting) the Chinese Communists started fighting their Russian allies along their borders in the late 1950's and early 1960's, before breaking off political relations and leading to a Tri-Polar Cold War between the US, the USSR and China, which then reverted on its head when Nixon visited Communist China in 1972.

[Legbreaker]

Considering the Chinese had a few hundred thousand troops on the ground in Korea and the Russians little more than a few "advisors"....

[Webstral]

Tibet, Xinjiang!

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

[bobcat]

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

not really part of the debate but my best guess on that would be the arms buildup of the 30's being a good parallel. no real clue now or then why all them guns are needed. china is sponsering a majority of armed combatants in proxy wars against the US.(hence new manufacture chinese type 56 rifles in afghanistan) which is similar to german involvement in spain in the 30's. and of course the financial manuvering.

[manunancy]

The funny thing about Chinese perception of aggression from the West is that the nations that have historicaly harmed them the worst were other Asian people, ie the Japanese and the Mongols. America who has been the greatest of all Western powers for some time has in fact been China's greatest ally.

things like the opium wars and the following crubling of the chines monarchy into the warlord"s mess of the first half of the 20th century are recent events that have done very little to endear 'the west' to China. The mongols may have been invaders, but they kept China more or less in one part.

The halfhearthed support during the japanese invasion of that period along with the later support of the thoroughly rotten and widely unpopular nationalists under Chang Kai Chek didn't help either.

Compared with china's several thousand years of history, it's still fresh memories.

[RN7]

Considering the Chinese had a few hundred thousand troops on the ground in Korea and the Russians little more than a few "advisors"....

I think the Chinese had about one million troops in Korea duing the entire war as opposed to about 25,000 Russian advisors. But most of the modern tanks, artillery, technical support and replacement equipment used by the Communist side were supplied by the Russians, and most combat pilots were also Russian, hense the word proxy war.

[RN7]

Be specific about what that means. I'm well aware of Chinese aggression in these areas. However, you have chosen to compare Communist China with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Therefore, you must draw direct parallels for your comparison to stand; otherwise, choose a different comparison.

According to Amnesty International about 1.2 million Tibetans have died as a direct result of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed and valuable artifacts vandalized and sold in Hong Kong. Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education. Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization. Tibetan Children are denied their right to education. 70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate. Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country. Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity. Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed. 6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Han Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country.

In Xinjiang a full scale insurection against Chinese domination of the region and the native Uighurs is underway that is in many ways comparable to what is going on in Afghanistan but largely hushed up by the Chinese government. The reasons for this? See Tibet.

Without even talking about what happened at Tianamen Square the way the Chinese Government is capable of treating its own people is illustrated by the Chinese Cultural Revoultion from 1966 to 1976, which was started by their great leader Mao to enforce socialism by removing capitalist, traditional and cultural elements from Chinese society, and impose his will on the nation and Chinese Communist Party. Not only was the country socially and economically damaged on a huge scale, but millions of innocent Chinese were persecuted in the violent factional struggles that ensued across the country, and suffered a wide range of abuses such as torture, rape, imprisonment, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced, most notably the transfer of urban youth to rural regions and many historical relics and artifacts were destroyed. The death toll among Han Chinese is unknown but probably was in the millions, but ethnic minorities suffered worse. In Inner Mongolia 23,000 people were beaten to death and 120,000 were maimed during a witchhunt to find members of the alleged separatist New Inner Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party. In Xinjiang, copies of the Qu'ran and other books of the Uyghur people were burned, and Imans were paraded around with paint splashed on their bodies. In Yunnan Province, the palace of the Dai people's king was torched, and an infamous massacre of Hui Muslim people at the hands of the People's Liberation Army in Yunnan, known as the "Shadian incident", reportedly claimed over 1,600 lives in 1975.

However a comparable comparison might be Stalanist Russia.

[RN7]

things like the opium wars and the following crubling of the chines monarchy into the warlord"s mess of the first half of the 20th century are recent events that have done very little to endear 'the west' to China. The mongols may have been invaders, but they kept China more or less in one part.

The halfhearthed support during the japanese invasion of that period along with the later support of the thoroughly rotten and widely unpopular nationalists under Chang Kai Chek didn't help either.

Compared with china's several thousand years of history, it's still fresh memories.

The Chinese actually started the Opium Wars themselves by restricting western and all foreign acces to trade with China as they wanted all the profits for themselves. Although Opium is a fairly odious sustance it was a traded commodity and was used and sold by the Chinese themselves. In some ways there are parallels with today in all of this.

Sure the Mongols kept China in one part, the death toll in the Mongol invasion of China is estimated at 60 million. They killed everyone who resisted them.

[headquarters]

Posters are steadily nudging this thread OT - the thread as far as I see it is a discussion about the technical capacity, motivations and military/diplomatic implications of an advanced Chinese blue water navy. I am not saying that it should be this ONLY - but its getting political with refernces to domestic US politics etc etc .

The last 10-20 posts about the ills in the Chinese political system are not really on this topic as far as I can judge. That said - I am not trying to dishearten debate or anything, but this harsh characterization of China - be it true or groundless - and I know SOME of it to be true - could be a little much for some.

To try and get back on track - building a force projection capacity like carriers etc doesnt seem all that sinister considering the huge interests China has outside its borders - nationals working all over Asia and Africa in great numbers, economical interests in oil, minerals etc in said areas.. It would be considered pretty reckless in other political systems to build no such capacity in view of these interests.

[RN7]

Posters are steadily nudging this thread OT - the thread as far as I see it is a discussion about the technical capacity, motivations and military/diplomatic implications of an advanced Chinese blue water navy. I am not saying that it should be this ONLY - but its getting political with refernces to domestic US politics etc etc .

The last 10-20 posts about the ills in the Chinese political system are not really on this topic as far as I can judge. That said - I am not trying to dishearten debate or anything, but this harsh characterization of China - be it true or groundless - and I know SOME of it to be true - could be a little much for some.

To try and get back on track - building a force projection capacity like carriers etc doesnt seem all that sinister considering the huge interests China has outside its borders - nationals working all over Asia and Africa in great numbers, economical interests in oil, minerals etc in said areas.. It would be considered pretty reckless in other political systems to build no such capacity in view of these interests.


The new Chinese carrier is a flag shower, nothing else. I'd be more concerned if China started building up a fleet of powerful nuclear attack submarines with land attack capabilities, or actually started building a couple of nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the Nimitz or Ford class.

The Chinese navy couldn't hope to challenge American naval power in the Pacific at the moment. But if India and Thailand have carriers, and Japan, South Korea and Australia are building helicopter carrying assault ships then the Chinese probably feel they should have one as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... But if India and Thailand have carriers, and Japan, South Korea and Australia are building helicopter carrying assault ships then the Chinese probably feel they should have one as well.

An interesting point - the big joke here however (and it's a joke on the West by the West), is that nations like Australia are building up their amphibious warfare abilities not for a greater capacity to fight a conventional war, but to increase their capacities in the low level insurgency warfare they were fighting in Iraq and are still fighting in Afghanistan. Conflicts like the East Timor situation and Australian assistance to the Solomon Islands have reinforced the belief that they'll be involved only in low level conflict for the near future.

A recent article in the Australian publication "Defence Today" titled "COIN reorientation - too far or not far enough?" by Dr Carlo Kopp discusses the decisions of Western nations to neglect the maintenance/improvement of their conventional combat abilities (particularly air defence and naval warfare) in favour of further increasing their counter-insurgency abilities. (Defence Today, Volume 9 Number 2, September 2011, pages 24 to 27 - minor preview here (http://www.defencenews.com.au/defence-today-current.cfm?detail=763) - but only valid until the next issue is published)

If the Chinese do field a viable aircraft carrier/s, it might be enough to cause a rethink for Western militaries away from their obsession with insurgency warfare perhaps? (The West really does seem to believe that insurgency warfare is the only warfare they'll be dealing with for the future).

[Webstral]

In the spirit of playing ball with my fellow moderator, I'm going to put the hardball discussion about China aside. I'm nbot going to try to slip in points or shots under the radar. I will say that RN7 has made some very valid points, has provided me with some things to think about, and has refrained from name-calling (always a welcome relief). Other than that, I'm back to naval strategy.

So... I agree completely that there is a showing-the-colors aspect to the new carrier. I also think that there's a long-term game plan. The Chinese need to build their expertise. Expertise in carrier operations will be useful in dealing with the US, India, and any and all regional players.

[RN7]

In the spirit of playing ball with my fellow moderator, I'm going to put the hardball discussion about China aside. I'm nbot going to try to slip in points or shots under the radar. I will say that RN7 has made some very valid points, has provided me with some things to think about, and has refrained from name-calling (always a welcome relief). Other than that, I'm back to naval strategy.

Well thanks for that Webstral, but I was just getting going on a rant about China. I have nothing against the Chinese but I absolutely despise the People's Republic government. Its vile and I'm amazed how a country as important as China still has a government like this.

So... I agree completely that there is a showing-the-colors aspect to the new carrier. I also think that there's a long-term game plan. The Chinese need to build their expertise. Expertise in carrier operations will be useful in dealing with the US, India, and any and all regional players.

Long term is the goal, but I think keeping good defence relations with Russia, not provoking an arms race with Japan and keeping ahead of India is their priority at the moment. but eventually challenging or even gaining parity with America in the Pacific is what they are looking at in the long term.

[headquarters]

I would lik eto chime in on the already stated fact - noone can match the USN be it the Pacific oranywhere else - it would be a matter of time before they get there fastest with the mostest so to say ( and damn the torpedos)

I am thinking the Chinese want to be able to wave the flag as already stated - always a useful tool in the military- diplomatic game, but also I think there is the goal of being able to confront lesser neighbouring navies - and actually going in and sorting things out far away if need be - evacuating nationals stranded in an unsavoury African civil war springs to mind, antipirate duty or what not - but also delivering some well placed ordinance to beef up their proxies and dishearten their adversaries in an imagined internal conflict somewhere the Chinese have invested money and efforts.

As someone have said - China have some internal turbulence - in an extreme situation a carrier could be the means to punish an area otherwise out of reach of the hardliners in power - again an imagined scenario with domestic unrest and the central goverment in need of striking rebels from the sea,blocking sea lanes etc .

As for the full on naval war with other major players like RN or USN I see that as a short lived affair ending with a lot of grief in Beijing.

[ArmySGT.]

She has put to sea. So the support structure is beginning to learn first hand, then the naval aviators will come along.

Chinese Carrier puts to Sea. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/14/satellite-takes-picture-chinese-carrier-on-move/)

There is also the well developed and unspoken of in the west Chinese Nuclear weapons tunnels (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1304832331001/students-uncover-china-nuke-tunnels)