China's Carrier Killer

[Legbreaker]

From the Killing Carriers thread back in March:

Originally Posted by Bluedwarf

...there is a type of weapon I understand was in use that would be perfect for this that has not been mentioned, but more on that in a minute.

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

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

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

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

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

[RN7]

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

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

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

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

http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/ar...early-thoughts

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

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

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

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

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[RN7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RN7]

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

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

http://www.scramble.nl/cn.htm
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/default.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...laaf-equip.htm

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

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

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

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

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

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

America more than any country is and will be able to send air, sea and land forces to that reason to deter Chinese aggression against countries friendly to America like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.

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

[RN7]

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P%29_estimates

[Mohoender]

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

[Legbreaker]

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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

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

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

[RN7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

[Abbott Shaull]

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

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

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

RN, thanks for the exchange

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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

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

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

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

[RN7]

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

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

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

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

You are right about the Desert Storm and OIF.

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

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

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

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

No your the one claiming it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

One thing the Chinese Air Force has also done is greatly update the avionics on their older aircraft (as much as the base design allows), giving them more bang for the buck.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

No your the one claiming it.

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

[RN7]

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

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

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

But it still was a conventional war was it not?

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

No, but neither does anyone else.

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

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

Classy. Show me where

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

Your words not mine.

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

Yes.

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

[Targan]

Play nice, kids.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

Play nice, kids.

You right daddy

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

Originally Posted by RN7

Your words not mine.

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

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

Originally Posted by RN7

Yes.

Right there.

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

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

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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





Right there.




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

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

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

[jester]

There is another option.

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

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

[Webstral]

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

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

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

Webstral

[RN7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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