<p>You might want to let the Chinese know that!</p>
<p>Looks like the SWOs and the bubbleheads will have plenty to practice shooting at as the years pass....</p>
<p>Looks like lots of stolen tech. Note the Phased Array Radar. wonder where they got that? MMM???</p>
<p>Doesn't matter. Stolen from us, or bought from the Soviets (who stole it from us), it's still being aimed at us.</p>
<p>What we see there is a dedicated effort to develop a deep-water navy with the capability to operate away from shore for extended periods, and to project power rather than merely defend.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope the folks at the Pentagon are paying attention. That is some serious capability they are developing, and if they can actually deploy it anywhere near effectively, we will have our hands full.</p>
<p>I think they just want Taiwan in the short term...
and long term, their motives are similar to ours. They want to project influence, stabilize supplies of oil and such. </p>
<p>Or maybe they miss the 15th Century, when they were the world's only naval superpower, or fear a repeat of the 19th, when British ships carried illicit drugs right to their doorstep without them having a fleet to do anything about it.</p>
<p>Regardless, even though they might posture, China I doubt China will start a war with us, now or ever. The Chinese know we're the hand that feeds them.</p>
<p>But I'm probably naively optimistic about this.
Why do you think they would "deploy" this stuff against US Zaphod?</p>
<p>By that reasoning zackaw, what has been the reason for any war throughout history? As long as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you can make a pretty sure bet that it will happen. </p>
<p>The Navy's job is to make sure that the cost will be far too high for that ever to be an option.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you think they would "deploy" this stuff against US Zaphod?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you cite for me any other force in the world they would be more likely intending to face? </p>
<p>It's not like the Russian fleet is anything to write home about. The British have slashed their fleet back to a flotilla. The rest of the world's fleets combined don't add up to ours.</p>
<p>Have no doubts: That fleet is aimed at us, either in a real offensive capacity or else to discourage us from intervening should they decide to "visit" Taiwan.</p>
<p>We're supposed to believe that the CHICOMS (Chinese Communists) are building up their fleet to defend the South China Sea. :rolleyes: That's one helluva coast guard.</p>
<p>Excuse me, that was nationalistic arrogance.
Even with the pictures, I can't imagine the PLAN posing a threat to the USN.</p>
<p>Guess SWO won't be a pleasure cruise for much longer.</p>
<p>Then again, for what enemy have we been preparing our fleet to face? Is it an enemy that threatens our home waters?</p>
<p>I suspect I'll be railroaded out because of my lack of cred amongst you guys, but here's my $.02 based on the Navy speakers I've listened to and research I've done for a paper I'm working on for a journal (on C4ISR and RMA stuff)...here goes nada...</p>
<p>China is not seeking to build, in the next two or three decades, a navy capable of DIRECT confrontation with the US Navy. They can't dream of projecting that kind of power or keeping up with the US's combined forces in the region for a long while. However, what they are interested in, according to their white papers, is building a force capable of demonstrating an ability to inflict heavy costs on the US. A recent paper I read in Jane's as well as a white paper from the DIA suggests that the purchases of the Kilo-class subs is a signal to the US that China is willing to up the ante over Taiwan.</p>
<p>However, China is also hedging its bets against other threats. As they import more and more resources, they grow increasingly nervous about the SLOCs, and they've weighed all the potential scenarios: conflict with the US, piracy in the SLOCs (like Strait of Malaca), US reducing power in the region and an ascendant Japan, and the possibility that they could be strangled if shipping lanes were shut off. </p>
<p>Now, it may be the case that they have a long-term plan in place to build a directly competitive navy, but even many Chinese big shots have agreed that the status quo balance of power (land based Chinese hegemon, maritime American hegemon) has been the best option for the past few decades. Of course, whether or not the right hand and the left hand in China know what the other is doing is always a fun question... but I think it's safe to say that US maritime hegemony has at least another few decades to look forward to.</p>
<p>Unless, of course, I do actually do OCS...then it's all downhill from there.</p>
<p>But anyway, I'm of the opinion that US maritime presence in the Pacific is absolutely key to American interests and regional stability. This is definitely one status quo we should try to maintain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Excuse me, that was nationalistic arrogance.
Even with the pictures, I can't imagine the PLAN posing a threat to the USN.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I see.</p>
<p>They're building that fleet to engage the Sri Lankans, then. Got it. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Guess SWO won't be a pleasure cruise for much longer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It isn't now, and even if it were, why would it no longer be if you can't imagine the PLAN posing a threat to the USN? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then again, for what enemy have we been preparing our fleet to face? Is it an enemy that threatens our home waters?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We prepared for decades to meet the Soviet threat, and the threat was both to the mainland directly and to our SLOCs, as mentioned above. We were also preparing to defend our allies (especially those who depend almost entiely on SLOCs). Finally, we have always preferred to be able to project power outward because it is far better to engage the enemy over THERE than over HERE. </p>
<p>Standing by for the establishment of moral equivalency between the United States of America and the Communist Chinese. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
China is not seeking to build, in the next two or three decades, a navy capable of DIRECT confrontation with the US Navy. </p>
<p><snip></snip></p>
<p>However, what they are interested in, according to their white papers, is building a force capable of demonstrating an ability to inflict heavy costs on the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only way they can inflict those costs is through direct confrontation. That fleet you see in the pictures is designed to project power outwards, not just defend an area. For example, China doesn't need an aircraft carrier to defend itself because it can maintain more aircraft for less money ashore than afloat. Carriers, OTOH, project power out from shore and are limited only by how far the they can go. They can park that thing 12 miles off San Francisco and we couldn't do a damned thing about it (legally) until AFTER it had launched a strike.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but even many Chinese big shots have agreed that the status quo balance of power (land based Chinese hegemon, maritime American hegemon) has been the best option for the past few decades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. They know that what wins wars and establishes power is troops on land, not ships at sea or planes in the air. Since they are the one with the troops, they have the luxury to think that way.</p>
<p>Zaphod,</p>
<p>I agree. But I don't see China trying to match the USN, ton for ton, in displacement or capabilities. Sure they could launch strikes against San Francisco, but do you really take them for fools? I don't. I think we'd be silly to think that way. They're increasingly assertive, but one thing the PRC has demonstrated is its pragmatic approach to most things.</p>
<p>The Kilo-class subs, and most of the new acquisitions, are not there for the Chinese to go float off to the Persian Gulf. They're not there go far at all. Well, at least not according to the DIA, for what it's worth. I wish I remember the name of the Vice-Admiral I met sometime back... he gave a great talk on the changing face of Chinese maritime power. He suggested that China will remain a regional sea power for some time, and that all estimates from our intelligence agencies and what we can figure out from their published white papers suggest that they have no interest in doing anything but providing a deterrent against Chinese claims on Taiwan and access to SLOCs.</p>
<p>Based on what I know of the Chinese political and military leadership, that makes a whole lot more sense to me than a more internationally active PLAN.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course. They know that what wins wars and establishes power is troops on land, not ships at sea or planes in the air. Since they are the one with the troops, they have the luxury to think that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but what keeps SLOCs open and trade moving is a navy. They're just as concerned with the political economy of it all as they are with the security issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I don't see China trying to match the USN, ton for ton, in displacement or capabilities. Sure they could launch strikes against San Francisco, but do you really take them for fools? I don't. I think we'd be silly to think that way. They're increasingly assertive, but one thing the PRC has demonstrated is its pragmatic approach to most things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, and that's what makes them so damned dangerous in the long run.</p>
<p>Also, they really don't need to project power as far as the U.S. All they need to do is keep the USN away from the western Pacific.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Kilo-class subs, and most of the new acquisitions, are not there for the Chinese to go float off to the Persian Gulf. They're not there go far at all. Well, at least not according to the DIA, for what it's worth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, well... DIA is a member of the same club that swore we'd be tripping over WMD's when we went into Iraq and didn't know the USSR was collapsing until they caught it on CNN, so you'll forgive me if I don't take their conclusions without a large truckload of salt.</p>
<p>Where this entire line of reasoning gets REALLY interesting is that if China and the U.S. go at it, it will wreck the economies of both. We buy all their junk, and imagine what would happen if all of a sudden all the China-made stuff disappeared. Wal-Mart would be empty and our companies would be out billions (if not trillions) from loss of assets in China. Where the situations diverge is that the Chinese are perfectly willing to lose a few hundred million people, whereas we aren't even willing to kill the enemy anymore, let alone lose American lives. Not a good way to go into a war or even confrontational peace.</p>
<p>So, at least for the short term, it would seem counterintuitive for a full war to be likely. However, that doesn't mean China wouldn't go for Taiwan (an ally and major economic powerhouse) or change its mind later.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, we cannot afford to allow China to keep developing a fleet like that and NOT have a fleet to counter it.</p>
<p>Oh, and now the Russians are at it again, too...</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that DIA isn't perfect, but let's be fair here: it's what we have to work with here. I don't claim to have powers of prognostication beyond what's open source, but I do know that China is just as concerned with maintaining the status quo-- within reasonable limits-- as the US is. Well, that and Vice Admiral What's-His-Name. I'll find his name and relay it sometime. Not that you probably know him...</p>
<p>However, the "status quo" is a funny thing when you enter security into the equation. It's really remarkable to read documents from the Air Force, who swear up and down that the Chinese shooting down a satellite represented the single greatest threat to security since the Soviets pointed their first ICBM at Washington.</p>
<p>Now, to be fair, I do think that a lot of the doom and gloom aimed at China is legit. For one, the Chinese see a lot of what they're doing as the perfect counter to the so-called RMA and C4ISR-geared "future" of the US armed forces. They think that it's fine and dandy for us to build 75 F-22s, but by golly, they'll just use legacy hardware to make life difficult (and costly). "Build F-22s, will you? We'll just throw lots and lots of ducks at them, and run up your cleaning bills." By ducks I mean older, conventional weaponry.</p>
<p>Yes, it's definitely an issue. I don't disagree at all. In fact, I think that the cuts to the Navy represent one of the worst decisions in the past decade or so from the top brass and politician-types. The Navy doesn't need cuts. It needs increased funding, and not because I'm a fan. I'm 100% serious, based on my assessment of the current status of security in the world. I'm not saying to up our spending to Cold War levels, but for goodness' sake, the Navy's ability to project power in the Asian region is, without a doubt, THE single most important factor keeping things on the straight and narrow.</p>
<p>Of course, Navies don't occupy, and we've got a couple of those on our plates, so we all know how that goes.</p>
<p>At any rate, I have more than enough faith in the ability of the USN to keep up with the PLAN. It's not the displacement alone that makes the USN superior. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Where this entire line of reasoning gets REALLY interesting is that if China and the U.S. go at it, it will wreck the economies of both. We buy all their junk, and imagine what would happen if all of a sudden all the China-made stuff disappeared. Wal-Mrt would be empty and our companies would be out billions (if not trillions) from loss of assets in China.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hell, most of it ain't even junk anymore. That end of the economy moved to Malaysia. Get with the program, Mr. Caveman, China's the new...umm...South Korea? But seriously, if you look at supply chains these days, China's moved up a few notches. A lot of the labor-intensive work is now too expensive to do in China! Oh Asia. </p>
<p>To be honest, I'm more worried about the Russians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I agree that DIA isn't perfect, but let's be fair here: it's what we have to work with here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true. Doesn't mean I'm not going to hold their feet to the fire, though. They haven't exactly been on top of their game lately (and I mean the whole intelligence community, not just DIA). </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's really remarkable to read documents from the Air Force, who swear up and down that the Chinese shooting down a satellite represented the single greatest threat to security since the Soviets pointed their first ICBM at Washington.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Satellites are both vital and expensive. By demonstrating the capability of swatting them from the skies, it places our strategic warning, communications, and tactical imaging systems at risk, which means we'd have to fight and manage blind.</p>
<p>Of course, the Air Force has always been the armed force most in danger of becoming obsolete. Navy and Army both have capable air arms, and the strategic balance can be held by boomers, so they have to fight for funding. The battles in the 50's and 60's over who was going to own aircraft carriers and SSBN's were legendary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, to be fair, I do think that a lot of the doom and gloom aimed at China is legit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, well..... No one considered Japan, Germany, or Al Qaeda much of a threat at one point, either...</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, I think that the cuts to the Navy represent one of the worst decisions in the past decade or so from the top brass and politician-types. The Navy doesn't need cuts. It needs increased funding,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So do the rest of the Armed Forces. The drawdown began long before a decade ago; it began when we foolishly decided to cash in on the "peace dividend". It's no different than what we did after WWI: "Well! The war is over! Let's slash the military because we don't need them anymore!" </p>
<p>OOPS!</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any rate, I have more than enough faith in the ability of the USN to keep up with the PLAN. It's not the displacement alone that makes the USN superior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. However, in order for the USN to be able to soundly defeat an adversary, they need the materiel, training, and people to do it. That requires money and commitment, and somehow I doubt this nation is ready to do that to the levels needed. Also, you cannot just throw together a fleet overnight anymore. The ships and systems are too big, to complex, and too expensive. It takes TIME, and when the bullets start flying You DO, in fact, go to war with what you have at hand, not what you WISH you had. Someone was excoriated for saying that, but only because those doing the whining didn't want to accept the truth.</p>
<p>We have always been a nation that geared up for the LAST war instead of the NEXT war. By definition, that is difficult to do for no other reason than that it requires you to predict the future accurately. If I could do that I'd be playing the lottery. However, when it comes to the defense of the nation, or the defense of myself, or preparedness for future unknowns, I try to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hell, most of it ain't even junk anymore. That end of the economy moved to Malaysia. Get with the program, Mr. Caveman, China's the new...umm...South Korea? But seriously, if you look at supply chains these days, China's moved up a few notches. A lot of the labor-intensive work is now too expensive to do in China! Oh Asia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As was expected. Eventually the manufacturing boom will move to Africa. After that........ Mars?</p>
<p>I remember when I was working in Mexico overhearing a conversation between two Mexican nationals. They were complaining about how Mexico was losing jobs to China and how terrible it was and so forth. I started laughing, and they asked me why.</p>
<p>"Well, now you bastards know how WE felt a few years back when we were losing all our jobs to YOU. Now YOU get to feel what it's like! Enjoy!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be honest, I'm more worried about the Russians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm worried about both...</p>