Written by Brian Kalman from SouthFront Team. Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.
A number of reports have appeared in both U.S. and foreign media in recent weeks pointing to the apparent eclipse of U.S. naval supremacy by an ascendant China. While these reports are largely overblown and sensationalized to pique the interest of the audience, the long-term trend is clear. China is on pace to achieve regional naval supremacy by the year 2025. This has been a long-term goal of the Chinese national and military leadership, the foundations of which were laid out in the early 1990s. Regional naval supremacy is a requirement to achieve China’s stated goal of creating the One Belt-One Road economic trade system.
Chinese naval supremacy, and the absolute necessity of it on at least a regional basis, is tied not only to the development and security of the maritime segment of One Belt-One Road, but also access to China’s growing presence on the African continent. The modernization and expansion of the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has been conducted in parallel with the fortification of islands in the South China Sea and the establishment of military bases in and around the strategic Horn of Africa and the Strait of Hormuz. After centuries of isolationism, internal strife, a devastating cultural revolution and later an economic boom, China is now on the cusp of global expansion. This will not just be a limited or one-dimensional expansion, but one of economic, military and even cultural dimensions.
In contrast to the U.S. leadership of recent decades, the national and military leadership of the Chinese Communist Party has been diligent and focused on implementing long term programs. While both the military industrial complex of the U.S. and the authoritarian communist systems of government of these respective nations both breed rampant corruption, social and economic inequality, and a multitude of dysfunctionalities, the Chinese system is inherently more singular in focus, as all authoritarian regimes are. While one could reflect on U.S. foreign policy over the past forty years and determine that it has been quite haphazard, disjointed and even schizophrenic in nature, the opposite must be said of China. This fact becomes readily apparent when contrasting the development and expansion of the PLAN and that of the U.S. Navy.
A U.S. Navy in Disarray
It can rightly be asserted that the U.S. Navy is a force struggling to define its core mission and strategic focus as the year 2020 begins. Since the dissolving of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military industrial complex has encouraged a wasteful bureaucracy, an inept and overly confident civilian and military leadership, to invest vast sums of money in a growing wish list of high-tech weapons aimed at achieving full spectrum dominance over every possible adversary. Little thought was apparently given to the opportunity cost of investing in such programs, and how they would be employed in a broader national defense strategy. The U.S. Navy stands out as the worst example of these failures and is poised at a crossroads today.
After the Soviet Union disappeared as its chief adversary on the high seas, the U.S. Navy maintained its age old obsession with the aircraft carrier, and utilized its many aircraft carrier strike groups (ASG) to great effect in attacking any disobedient nation that lacked a robust navy or air defense system. The U.S. Navy has not engaged in a naval engagement of any significance with a viable naval adversary since World War II. One sided “engagements” with small vessels of the navies of Libya, Iran and Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s cannot seriously be considered as meaningful measures of U.S. Navy capabilities. While the modern ASG proved effective at power projection against weaker adversaries, its viability in a modern maritime environment heavily contested by a peer adversary has yet to be established. The U.S. Navy has decided to ignore this obvious fact and has continued to embrace the ASG as the cornerstone of naval strategic planning well into the future.
The U.S. Navy has maintained ten ASGs and launched the latest generation of aircraft carriers in the form of the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 in 2013. Although commissioned in 2017, the carrier has yet to reach operational readiness and has been plagued by many technical problems with its most essential combat systems. The CVN-78 is the most expensive warship ever constructed, with current unit cost approaching $14 billion USD. A second carrier in class, the John F. Kennedy CVN-79, is currently under construction.
Perhaps paradoxically, while the U.S. has invested vast sums of money, energy and focus in developing a massive new class of aircraft carrier, replete with expensive, yet unproven new technologies, it has done very little to improve the one asset most crucial to the carrier, the carrier airwing that it carries into battle. Instead of committing to develop aircraft tailored to specific functions, the Navy chose to embrace the one-size-fits-all concept of the F-18 Super Hornet. In addition, the service also committed to this concept to a much larger degree, in throwing its support behind the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter. Regardless of the fact that the U.S. Navy has allowed its F-18 fleets to devolve to an abysmal state of readiness, with 70% of airframes unfit for operations at any given time, and the fact that the F-35 has only been declared operational in small numbers with the airwings of the USMC, neither aircraft rectifies the combat range deficiency now inherent in the aircraft carrier airwing. In short, an ASG will become a target of both land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) and even land-based Chinese aircraft equipped with anti-ship guided missiles, long before the ASG can achieve striking distance with its carrier borne aircraft. This problem becomes even more glaring when one considers the scenario which includes a Chinese battle group forward deployed to interdict an ASG, yet operating within range of its own land-based Anti-Air Warfare assets.
What has the U.S. Navy done to modernize and improve its surface warfare vessels while it dumped massive amounts of money, time and energy into the Gerald R. Ford class CVN and the F-35 JSF, both of which have been plagued by cost overruns and numerous major problems and shortcomings? Not surprisingly, the service embraced new ship designs that were long on high-tech promise, yet did not fit into a specific, traditional and vital function within the broader strategic framework of the service. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and Zumwalt DDG-1000 programs were ill-conceived at the outset and resulted in two classes of vessels (actually three) that consumed vast amounts of funding, time and energy that could have been used to improve upon traditional, proven warship designs. At an approximate unit cost of $350 million USD per LCS and $8 billion per DDG-1000, both vessels have proven long on cost and short on capability. Perhaps acknowledging, albeit begrudgingly, that both programs are unmitigated failures, the total number of LCSs planned for delivery has been reduced to 35 from a planned 52, while only 3 of an original order on 32 DDG-1000s will be delivered.
To put the costs of the above programs in perspective, the U.S. Navy could have constructed no less than twelve Arleigh Burke Flight IIA DDGs for the same cost as the three failed DDG-1000s, seven such ships for the cost of CVN-78, and six such ships for the cost of the 35 planned LCS vessels. The Arleigh Burke class DDG is arguably the backbone of the U.S. Navy and is a highly effective and proven warship. Sadly, the latest upgrade to the design, the Flight III, will not begin production until sometime between 2023 and 2029. A multi-purpose frigate vessel program known as the FFG(X), meant to pick up where the LCS failed, has yet to reach an advanced design phase. There are currently five contenders for the new FFG(X) proposal. Two designs are of foreign manufacture and two are modifications of current LCS designs, leaving only one wholly original indigenous design.
At the same time, there is no replacement at all planned for the aging Ticonderoga CG-47 class cruiser. The Ticonderoga class CGs perform a vital AAW and surface warfare function in the established U.S. Navy carrier strike group structure. The only other navy in the world fielding a similar warship is China’s, with the introduction of the first Type 055 class in 2018.
A Chinese Navy in Ascent
While the United States Navy struggles to identify its purpose and maintain its preeminence in the 21st century, the PLAN has embarked on a robust program of modernization and expansion based on sound strategic principles and proven technology. Much of this technology has been either overtly or covertly obtained from other nations, chiefly the United States and the Russian Federation. Largely beginning with the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, China developed the widespread practice of acquiring foreign technologies and practices that were effective, through a multitude of means, and adapting and improving upon them. Chinese covert intelligence gathering efforts made great gains during the Clinton presidency, and have continued unabated.
China has produced a long list of modern, capable classes of warships in recent years. Although the completion and refitting of the Ukrainian once derelict Varyag aircraft carrier into the Liaoning, the first operational aircraft carrier ever to be fielded by the PLAN has gained a great deal of attention, this development is overshadowed by the total transformation of the service into a truly modern navy. Not only has the PLAN designed, constructed and put a new generation of warships into operational service in the past two decades, it has engaged in an ambitious ship building program that has seen these vessels fielded at an unprecedented rate. Standardized designs for corvette, guided missile frigate (FFG), guided missile destroyer (DDG), large guided missile destroyer/cruiser (CG), landing platform dock (LPD), landing helicopter dock (LHD), and logistical support vessels of multiple classes have all been adopted and fielded in significant numbers in the past 20 years. Running in parallel to this, the PLAN has also developed a fledgling aircraft carrier program, including the 100% indigenous Type 001A Shandong. Such a feat is unparalleled in modern naval history.
The question must immediately be asked; why would a nation engage in such an ambitious program to transform and expand its naval warfighting capabilities in such totality? The answer is obvious. It intends to use this capability. But in what fashion and to what end?
Although I conducted a detailed analysis of China’s maritime strategic realignment in June of 2017, it is easy to summarize Chinese aims in this regard. In order for the Chinese nation to complete and secure the ambitious Old Belt-One Road economic trade corridor and to ensure the economic prosperity of the country into the next century, a sizeable navy of unparalleled capability will be required. Such a naval force is currently in an advanced state of completion, yet a further 5 years are likely required before the PLAN will be in a position to fight and win against a determined U.S. naval effort to confront it through force of arms. Current Chinese strategic planning and the pace of warship development and acquisition would support such an assertion.
If current production levels are maintained, and planned orders are not increased or decreased, the PLAN will field an impressive force of major surface warfare, amphibious warfare and aircraft carriers by 2025. By this time, major surface warfare combatants will include 50 x Type 056 Corvettes of all variants, 30 x Type 054A Frigates, at least 18 x Type 052D Destroyers, and 8 or more Type 055 Destroyer/Cruisers. The amphibious warfare fleet will be comprised of approximately 38 x LSTs (Type 071, 072 and 072A), 8 x Type 071 LPDs, and at least 2 x Type 075 LHDs. The Type 001 Liaoning and Type 001A Shandong will both be operational, while the first of the much more capable Type 002 CATOBAR carriers will likely have reached operational status as well. These warships will be supported by no less than eleven logistics support and underway replenishment vessels and four garrison support vessels of modern design.
The PLAN submarine fleet has been growing in number and capabilities in recent years as well. The likelihood of an increase in this pace will surely be influenced by the completion of the largest submarine construction facility in the world, the Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Company (BSHIC) submarine manufacturing facility located in Huludao, in the province of Liaoning. Completed in 2017, the facility can internally house the complete manufacture of four submarines at any given time, all out of view of prying eyes and satellite surveillance.
A major strategic advantage that China has achieved over the United States is that it has built the most robust and productive shipbuilding industry in the world over the past three decades. China has been ranked as the world’s top shipbuilder for 5 years now, though South Korea is still a very close second. The United States by contrast, ranks tenth. The gross tonnage of vessels of all types produced in Chinese shipyards; however, is 77 times greater than the total produced by U.S. shipyards. For example, in 2014 Chinese shipyards produced 22.68 million gross tons, while U.S. shipbuilders manufactured just 293,000 gross tons over that same year. The United States only has four or five shipyards that possess the capability of producing large warships, and only one that can construct a Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.
The Greater Strategic Picture
It is important to view the development of both navies within the larger context of the respective geopolitical strategic positions of both countries. China undoubtably enjoys a stronger position today than it did a decade ago, while the opposite must be said for the United States. Not only has China gained greater political and economic influence on a global scale, but it has moved to secure military supremacy in all areas along its national borders, and increasingly within its expanding maritime territory. By contrast, the United States has lost both political and economic influence in many regions of the world, largely through its own failed policies. It’s political, economic and military influence in the Middle East has undoubtably decreased, with Russia and Iran taking a more active role in the region. China has taken advantage of this new dynamic, by strengthening ties with both Russia and Iran. The same can be argued for its position in the Asia Pacific region, with China emerging as the most influential player.
China has managed to develop greater economic ties with nations that have decided to participate in the One Belt-One Road project, which has also afforded them a greater political influence over these nations. China has negotiated the establishment of military bases, mostly logistical support facilities for its growing navy, but also affording them the ability to forward deploy the rapid reaction forces required to respond to any serious security threats to its interests at any point along the growing trade corridor. China continues to solidify its presence on the Africa continent, mostly through economic and political means. The military base established in Djibouti, and fleet support agreements established in Gwadar, Pakistan and the African nation of Tanzania provide the resources needed to be able to exert military force if required to back up Chinese economic and political efforts on the continent.
Although the U.S. maintains numerous military bases and facilities in Africa to secure its own strategic interests in the region, it lacks the same political and economic influence that China has established. The U.S. military has been aiding a number of nations in Africa to battle Islamic extremist insurgents, but has made little investment in those nations in a broader sense, and thus exerts far less influence.
Although outside of the maritime sphere of influence of China, the nations of Europe have increasingly responded favorably to the promised benefits of the One Belt-One Road trade project. On a political and military level, China has largely remained out of European affairs. The same cannot be said for the United States.
While the Obama administration began the disastrous, multifaceted war against the Russian Federation, the Trump administration has only expanded it, while antagonizing its most traditional European allies in the process. Whether through miscalculation, arrogance or imperial hubris, the Trump administration has doubled down on the failed Ukraine policies of its predecessor, increased U.S. military presence on the European continent, and has leveled trade tariffs on key allies. By propping up the phony Russian threat narrative with increased military deployments, the United States is squandering vast sums of money and diverting large contingents of front-line fighting forces to confront an enemy it knows to be a threat conceived through its own propaganda alone.
China has responded to the U.S. led effort to internationally isolate Russia, by leveraging its position to provide an alternate market for Russian goods, chiefly in the energy sector and high-tech military hardware acquisitions. It has supplied political support for Russia on the world stage and has increased military cooperation with Russia in key regions where both nations share an interest and are forced to confront the United States. Both nations have increased bilateral cooperation in developing the northern arctic shipping route, and have conducted joint naval exercises in the maritime regions of Europe, Asia and the Indian Ocean. Iran most recently joined the two in joint exercises in the Indian Ocean.
Can the PLAN Win?
A scenario where the PLAN and U.S. Navy engage in open conflict is improbable at present, yet not impossible. Although China has strengthened its position to such a degree in the South China Sea that no other nation, including the United States can change the strategic realities that exist there today, increasing interaction between PLAN and U.S. warships may lead to a tragic encounter. U.S. freedom of navigation patrols are largely symbolic in nature and do not present any real threat to Chinese interests in the region, yet they do require a response. The more robust the assertion by the U.S., the more robust the response by China. Such a situation could lead to a situation where an accident occurs, or an overzealous vessel commander makes a decision that leads to a military engagement which could escalate in a very short window of time.
It is most probable that China will do everything possible to avoid such a situation at present. This may not be the case after 2025, when the PLAN enjoys a much stronger position relative to the U.S. Navy and its allies in the Asia Pacific. China will occupy the central position, enjoy regional guided ballistic missile supremacy and be able to take advantage of land-based air assets in support of its naval assets. Surveillance and early warning facilities established on various artificial island and atolls will by then be fully operational. South Korea, Japan and Australia would most likely not be willing to assume the sacrifice required in military and economic terms that would result from overtly aiding the U.S. in a military confrontation.
If fire was exchanged between a U.S. warship and PLAN warship in the South China Sea, and the incident was not immediately deescalated, the U.S. vessel would inevitably be destroyed. The PLAN would suffer significant casualties in the exchange without doubt. China would immediately move to deny all access to the region through its already robust Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities. The United States would then have to decide what level of sacrifice would be acceptable to the state and the American public in rapidly deciding upon its level of military response. The authoritarian Chinese state would find this decision much easier to make, regardless of the nature of any U.S. administration that may head the executive branch at the time.
The U.S. seventh fleet would be hard pressed to mount any immediate military response, beyond mounting a retaliatory attack via attack submarines forward deployed in the region. Any large effort mounted to attack Chinese island garrisons in either the Spratly or Paracel islands would be met with overwhelming force by a combination of anti-ship guided ballistic missiles, submarine, surface and air attack. The PLAN would have a very large amphibious warfare component to respond quickly to reinforce or reclaim any island territories threatened. It is hard to see any such scenario taking place, without the confrontation elevating to a full-spectrum war of global proportions. Most regional allies of the United States would calculate that such an outcome would render overwhelmingly negative results and would not outweigh the tragic loss of one or two U.S. warships and their crews.
Assuming that a hot war could be avoided, a new cold war would inevitable result between an ascendant China and a U.S. in decline. If current military, economic and political trends continue from the present through 2025, China will only strengthen its strategic position both regionally and globally, while the opposite will likely be the case for the United States. It is important to note that the leadership of both nations see such a conflict as undesirable and not inevitable, yet miscalculations, mistakes and poor judgement can scuttle any grand plans. History is unequivocal in this regard and must be analyzed and understood to avoid repeating disaster. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril, yet a current period bereft of insightful, measured and reasonable leadership in Washington, does not bode well for avoiding what may prove to be an unavoidable conflict between two global superpowers.
Quality over quantity? USN has quality, while China will have just quantity with new warships.
Experience and reliability
“reliability” Your new Ford class Super Carrier is permanently broken and not yet ready despite years of efforts. Your new “LCS” (Little Crappy Ship) also. Your F(lop)-35 is lemon specially Flop-35B. Full of bugs and things that doesn’t work. Can’t fly super sonic because heat damages “stealth” ,not yet combat ready, can’t turn, can’t do any of the thing planned. Your navy air-force is falling apart because “workhorse” F-18 has too many flight hours and not enough spare parts. The level of combat reediness in US air-force in general is low despite efforts change that. Specially when it comes to F(lop)-35 and F-22.
“Experience” For terrorizing whole planet, you sure do have “experience”, yet you can’t defeat the Afghan peasants for already 18 years or win decisively any war of aggression except against micro tiny Granada and Iraq (It took you 2 wars and help of UK and other “allays” to win) So despite all that “experience” of losing most of the time I don’t know about any of your “experience” to show of so much.
Only fools can trust the US- Hollywood/CIA Jews gesticulations
“Tell me what do you eat, I will tell you who you are”
Chinese Food is Class and delicious ! US Junk-Food is Food for fat and mental sick Gun-Totting Junkies !
71% Of Military Age Americans Too Sick To Join, Study Says https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/03/71-percent-military-age-americans-too-sick-join.html
F- 35 (Flop-35) is lemon and new Ford class Super Carrier also. US sub-sonic anti ship missiles are pathetic comparing to Chinese Dong Feng anti aircraft carrier ballistic missile’s and super sonic anti ship missiles. So “quality” is their strong point really? Number of Chinese ships is bigger than number of US ships. US has much bigger tonnage since they have 100 000 super air carriers and other big ships The “quality” is also becoming very relative since China has been producing with great speed, a big number of new frigates, destroyers, subs. At the moment all that is enough to deter US, China doesn’t really need any extra efforts. They will overtake completely US navy not only with quantity but with quality when they build enough 10 000 tons “destroyers” Type 055. Those “destroyers” are the same size and fire power of US cruisers. They are super modern and equal to U.S. AEGIS Arleigh Burke-class .
The US are the best for Big Mouth,
Hollywood and mainstream Medias Propaganda Lies to roll the uneducated masses in the flour before to rape & fried them !
the usn is not about quality – just shoddy construction for maximum pay, liable to break down when it’s needed.
Only One Hypersonic Missile,
gone the 14 Billions Ford class Super Carrier !
Ford class Super Carrier is only good to impress defenceless Third World Countries !
For the US only robbed and borrowed money talk
The Afghanistan failure costed taxpayer 3’000 Billions only to fill up Deep Power Pockets… Nothing left for the US masses and Education, this is said Democracy ! The same with the 51 State Israel Democracy will ashamed the Humanity the Darkest-Ages grand inquisitor butcher Thomas de Torquémada !
The Simulacra Democracy
by JOHN STEPPLING FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Photo by William Brawley | CC by 2.0
… a nation in which 87 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four year olds (according to a 2002 National Geographic Society/Roper Poll survey) cannot locate Iran or Iraq on a world map and 11 percent cannot locate the United States (!) is not merely “intellectually sluggish.” It would be more accurate to call it moronic, capable of being fooled into believing anything …”https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/26/the-simulacra-democracy/.
Only one micro drone swarm, plus cyber war attack and all those big heavy cumbersome missiles are history
Whahahahahaha, you moron, it is just the other way.
The US/UK warmongers used their supremacy for massives Genocides and Pilfering’s XX Century had 203 millions victims, 3% of them are Ashkenazi’s Turco-Mongol Khazars out of the blue daily in the mainstream Medias, 97% is pull with dust bellow the carpet…
The Silk Road was the Eurasia development backbones during Milleniums. To resurrect it is a good omen if it’s for Human and Environment sustainability !
The US went out of Barbarism straight to decadence without to pass by Civilisation !
Hopefully China is and was an old Civilisation based on innovations and trade, if they follow the US/UK Barbaric Colonial “System”, be afraid very afraid the Planet End !
it’s better if the unhinged states of morons (america) doesn’t try anything in the south china sea, since the navy’s heavy pieces will be obliterated by china’s land-based missile systems and the remnants will be easily mopped up by china’s frigates and destroyers etc. the problem is that the unhinged states is in desperate mood and might resort to use nukes if it doesn’t play out the way pentagon has planned. it would mean the end of the unhinged states of A but a lot of otherwise innocent people on the asian mainland would suffer.
Such a war would mean the end of the world. No more China. No more US. No more Russia. No more anyone.
and in particular no more friggin jews.
.. but that’s killing the host to get rid of the cancer. Not very wise.
Now that shows you how demented your anti-Jewish lunacy is. Take your meds, Adolf.
Russia has China’s back on nukes problem and US knows that. In the case of nuclear attack on China they will receive everything China has and will be finished off with Russian nukes. US pertinently knows that they are NOT capable to fight Chinese and Russian armies combined. They have played so many war games with their computers and they know that they are always losers no matter what they try. Even their experts say so including RAND corporation think-tank.
Nuclear or otherwise, the US has yet to age enough to the cultural depth as in any of these two states to show its suitability in the face of significant consequential war on its territory. Brute force may cry for a long time, but when it ends, has it aged enough further to a pragmatic culture?
Good point, thank you.
– “The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning…. Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades.” (Washington prepares for World War III, WSWS, 5 November 2015)
– “According to a report in China Military Online, escalations between the two superpowers will lead to the inevitable. “The problem is not whether the war will break out, but when,” the report said. “Our task is to develop the ‘trump card’ weapon for China before the war.” (New Arms Race: China, US Prepare for Missile Warfare, Sputnik, 24/08/2016), etc….
There are various developments that are gradually progressing towards a potential kinetic stage of conflict (despite efforts to prevent this outcome). These include: – US backed Taiwan moves towards partition from the PRC (moves towards war recognising the PRC Anti-Secession Act) – US-allied efforts to partition Hong Kong. – US replication of pre-Iraq war actions targeting the DPRK. – US objective of integrating a ‘regime changed’ DPRK into broader globally expanding economic/military bloc architecture (including the basing of [occupation] forces and missile architecture). – Current economic warfare actions potentially leading to a conflict involving embargoes/blockades (US-allied military exercises simulating such scenarios). – external conflicts necessitating PRC intervention, etc…..
Recognising broader unfolding situations (a regime changed Ukraine involved in a US-NATO-allied bloc proxy war against Russian Federation backed Russian speaking regions in the Donbass, the potential for a regional conflagration in the ME, escalating situations in Libya, Cyprus, India-Pakistan, etc.), the potential for the many conflicts to become one should be apparent. In this context (and with recognition of the approaching structural failure of the Western bloc financial system, levels of fraudulently manufactured debt in the financial markets already translating to effective insolvency, function merely maintained by the further expansion of debt), a kinetic stage of conflict between the US and the PRC can be determined as eventually probable.
NO, since an attempt at that would bring the end of China and likely much of the rest of the world. Yet another stupid dump on the US article. Anyway, the Chinese Navy is NOT even a Blue Water Navy or at best a Navy with a very limited Blue Water capacity. In terms of tonnage of major warships, the US Navy is gigantically greater than China. Even in terms of all military ships, the US tonnage is several times that of China. Actually, the US Navy is greater than the next dozen navies combined including China. And then there are the navies of military treaty allies. The US has dozens. China has none. Again, quite the silly question and article.
Troll alert !
There are a lot of Putz Putin the Poisoner Trolls around here. Thanks for the warning.
Pathetic Zionist vermin. This is not your “backyard” you know, your time is running out you imperialist filth .
And yet again you miss the real issues. The Chinese Navy is growing and coiling strength while the U.S. Navy is stagnating and expending strength on mostly useless and futile actions. Oh, and another issue: The Chinese Navy has better missiles. In an engagement they have punching power beyond any list provided by focusing on total tonnage.
You guys are just silly. This is like bragging about Russia having better nuclear missiles to defeat the US. If you missed it over the past 50 years, these things are for deterrence. If ever used BOTH sides and the rest of the world go bye bye.
Which is why pushing others into a corner is such a foolish, even reckless policy. Without the ABM Treaty and it’s limitations both sides have reason to escalate quickly in the event of hostilities. Especially Russia who has missiles to evade ABM defenses but fewer of those defenses herself. Neither side can afford to strike last which means any confrontation can grow into a full blown launch less than an hour later as each side notes the steps that the other is taking. Do you accept the rapidly evolving posture and deployments as defensive or steps toward launching a first strike? With the U.S. posture towards Russia, the non stop hysterical rhetoric and the U.S. statements about prompt global strike, etc. Russia could go from a peaceful 11:01AM normal day to full blown launch first strike by 11:59 just based on years of threatening American behavior coupled with some violent miscalculation and clash somewhere. So, bye bye it is.
Both sides have second strike capabilities to destroy the other. So no, I don’t think the US or Russia would use a first strike option. And neither side has any advantage from making a preemptive strike. If the US or Russia use nukes in anyway on each other, it’s bye bye to both and the rest of the world.
Russia does not have a second strike capability that she can count on. The U.S. and British Navies attempt to follow every ballistic missile submarine patrol that leaves Russia. Russia escorts most of her missile submarines, at least for some distance from base and directs some into “redoubt” waters to ensure safe launch capability but in a growing crisis Russia has reason to doubt her ability to destroy much of North America and Western Europe in a second strike scenario. With her land based ICBM’s degraded by an American and British first strike Russia would have to coordinate her submarine launches perfectly to bring enough warheads in a swarm timed right to overwhelm ABM defenses. That’s what makes them destabilizing and why there was an ABM treaty to begin with. The side that fires last might not have enough weapons to overcome the defense. In a growing crisis people beneath the Kremlin will have a strong and dreaded urge to reach for the suitcase before they lose everything without the ability to fight back. With growing American boldness around the world Russian MOD officials have more reason to believe that Americans are ruthless and crazy and will be saying so, loudly and often as the minutes go by. Russia launches first, at least for much of the next decade. You’ll have about 28 minutes to celebrate America’s being great again.
Since when Russia has ” fewer of those (ABM)defenses herself”??! And what are all those S-400 and S-300V4 they have?! Russian air defenses are one of the best in the world if not the bets. Surly better than “AEGIS” US defenses that are also thinly spread around the world and even less in U.S. Patriots I don’t even count because crap system defenses. Against Russia’s ICBM, SLBM, specially latest Avangard US is totally defenseless even if Russia announces launch in advance! So get informed and stop talking rubbish.
I’m informed. And yes, Russia has superb air defenses. But the Nudol is just now in testing. The U.S. has thousands of deployed ABM interceptors. The top of the line S-400 missile could intercept warheads, in theory but has not been tested in that role. The S-500 has but is just now entering mass production. Also, American warheads re-enter the atmosphere at something like Mach 20. The S-400’s ability to get a target lock ends on a targeted object at right about Mach 17. You are counting eggs not in Russia’s basket yet. Russia has invested roubles worth over 100 billion dollars on missiles able to penetrate ABM defenses for a reason. The entire reason for the Yars, Bulava and Sarmat missiles are because the U.S. has ABM defenses in depth that Russia didn’t and still doesn’t have. Ten years from now things will surely be different but Russian war planners cannot count on intercepting the massive volumes of American warheads launched from submarines.
I’m informed.= Nudol is just now in testing.
NO YOU ARE NOT INFORMED but quite ignorant because you don’t know basics. Nudol missile sexists ever since USSR and Moscow never stopped to have those defenses. These are just testing for new missiles for “old” defense system to replace “old” missiles!
Listen I have been reading first few sentences and you seam to be nice person but you are quite ignorant on the subject… So I would like to bail myself out of this conversation… Take care.
I share your opinion about the state of world affairs and I support Russia’s efforts to make the UN Charter the root of International relations and Russia’s impressive efforts at improving her defenses is something I also support but I’m not willing to invent facts like you are. The A235 Nudol ABM system is in testing having proven itself in a test intercept last summer, it’s first. The USSR ABM system was called the A135 and it existed only in a defensive belt around Moscow, per the ABM Treaty. Some of that system has been dismantled in Russia’s efforts to grow her surface to air systems into ABM capability but they are far from there. Even in a pie in the sky scenario where Russia has secretly begun deploying the A235 (she hasn’t) and say they have all the old A135’s deployed (50) and Russia distributes the first S500 prototype to ABM duties and all fifty battalion sets of the S-400’s to ABM duties across the country the most ABM capable missiles Russia could collect at the ready from that would be 60 A235 and 50 A135 and 104 40n6E missiles from the S-400 systems plus say 10 ABM capable missiles from the S500 prototype. That’s 224 best case scenario ABM missiles, today. A fantasy because 60 A235’s don’t exist and Russia is not about to spend tens of billions of roubles re-deploying old limited range A135’s but for the sake of argument let’s run with it. Tell me, in basic math how 224 ABM missiles stop the 600-800 incoming attacking warheads just from deployed American and British SSBN’s? The U.S. deploys 3-4 Ohio class subs at any one time on deterrence patrol and the British one. They share missiles. Leave the French out of it and take away all of American land based missiles and cruise missiles and assume 100 missile/warhead failures and give the Russian defenses the benefit of the doubt and say they destroy every warhead they have an ABM missile for and Russia is still devastated by more than 400 Submarine launched warheads. I invite your intellect back into the world we inhabit rather than the one both of us wish we had.
Are you retarded ?.
Yup i agree it looks good on maps like the ones shown, but the whole point is to keep Chinese exports moving
No pun intended but beyond the range of these Chinese missiles is a good deal of blue water, which currently the Chinese can’t and won’t be able to control, ergo they are creating nothing but a prison which will trap them,admittedly it’ll be extended beyond their shores but beyond that they’ll still have to fight their way to……oh, that’s right export things to countries they’ll almost certainly be at war with!
OFF TOPIC Just have found something that finally gives again new confirmation of YAK-141 STOVL project (vertical take off)
Yak-150 (?) “Russian military sources and state media have confirmed work is currently underway on a next generation vertical landing capable fighter – a successor to the Yak-141
New upgrade of SU-57 into SU-60(?) There is also MIG-41 (PAK-DP) new interceptor and new light stealth MIG-36(?) jet development with UAE co-financing the project. And PAK-DA new well known Tupolev bomber project of course.
Also confirmation for “heavy aircraft carrier and pair of new 20,000-35,000 tonne amphibious assault ships” https://sputniknews.com/military/202001041077943035-mig-36s-and-su-60s-author-names-exotic-next-gen-russian-military-aircraft-we-could-see-in-2020s/
Interesting stuff, thanks.
New upgrade of SU-57 into SU-60(?)
While they have no money for su-57 production.
In your MSM propaganda window maybe but in reality… First pre production of 12 new SU-57 already tobe delivered this year (while another 76 will start to be produced next year with new 2nd. stage engines)
I am a free man in a free country. No MSM, no nonMSMS. Own opinions.
You don’t have more than 50 F-22 (fully combat ready) at any give time (despite huge efforts to improve combat redness) F(lop)-35 is not considered to be any kind of danger except to those who fly that “flying brick”
F-35 is much better than you think and the US will have 4000 of them Russia has only 6-700 modern planes. That Russia which is on 2 continents, with long bporders, 3 frontlines. The 4th one will be in the arctic region. Russia should have 1000 su-57 and 6000 su-35
You forgot 11time zones!
Russia is a big nothing burger
Metal basher for third world countries
you are BANKRUPTED would be empire
4000 yeah sure. you will not survive as would be empire another 3 years
No. And lose the war before it starts by bankrupting itself like the USSR? No. With an integrated air defense system and the hard hitting ability to strike back Russia is fine with 1200 aircraft. What they have: 120-130 unmatched Mig-31 BSM’s. Highest flying, fastest interceptors. Another 100 Mig-31’s not updated, mostly serving in a type of active air defense reserve. Another 12-18 are updated to the K version, carrying the Kinzhal hypersonic missile. They have 300 Su-27’s, about 180 have been updated to modern radars and avionics. They have 120 Su-30’s and 18-20 navalized Su-30’s, called the Su-33. They now have six Mig-35’s with mass production starting up. There are 50 updated Mig-29’s and 200 air defense reserve Mig-29’s. There are today 90 Su-35’s with the “last” 8 to be delivered this year and there are 110 Su-34 fighter bombers. Rounding out the tactical attack list are the Su-25-60 aircraft the Su-24 with 80 airframes and the Yak-130, a tactical trainer with light attack capability standing on 130 airframes. Two Su-57’s are active with the Aerospace forces but not declared operational with the status of the first four production models, now three, in question because of the accident. That’s between 1200-1300 active tactical airframes, paired with pilots. In reserve are several hundred Mig-23 airframes of questionable immediate airworthiness for last measure reserve. Really, all they need is to fix the Su-57 mass production issue and build the 70 plus 57’s and 36 Mig-35’s while transitioning to seeing the Mig-41 project through development. They’re fine with those numbers. Especially with the S-500 and S-350 entering mass production.
4th industrial revolution will sooner or later render the whole silk road thing irrelevant
The world is moving towards localised manufacturing and consumption, the age of globalisation and ‘ Just in time ‘ supply chains is coming to and end, with it will be Chinese dreams of a global trade soft power empire
Chinese development plans are like something from the 19 th century, the kind of thing the British did, export loads of loans , build road, rail, dock infrastructure, blah, blah blah, yesterdays story folks
The moral is China is building a navy for what is rapidly becoming the past, it’s investment strategy is designed to trap poor countries, sooner or later they’ll leapfrog ahead and China will be left with a load of old rotting infrastructure and a navy to go with it
You are such sorry losers! When losing in 5th generation jets race you simply declare that drones are much more important. When losing in economy, trade and industrial power from China you simply declare that “Silk Road” global initiative is of no importance and outdated.
The ONLY thing you are really good is the MSM PROPAGANDA and blabbing your big mouth all the time. The only problem in that is that nobody trust you any more
ZP you actually don’t understand whats going on in the world
You’re looking at the world through dreadnought glasses
In other words out dated concepts, you have a maginot line mentality not fit for the 21st century
Whatever you say clown You are spiting your propaganda bullshit out of practically totally bankrupted country (would be Empire). US is just postponing total collapse of the dollar and her economy by printing insane quantity of dollars and making futile attempt to kick the can down the road for another year!
You losers are FINISHED ! Can’t wait to dance on your grave.
Well you won’t dance on my grave brother!
Please explain why the USA is going to collapse?
You can’t, can you! I mean you cant actually say how,why or when this will happen can you? Go on put and actual date on it?
Soviet/ socialist daft anti capitalist systems collapse my friend, and just remember,if, and it really is a big if, the USA collapsed you,me and virtually everyone on this site, plus the owners of this site are gonna go down with it!
Your grave? You are of no importance ! But I will definitely celebrate collapse of the dollar and collapse of US as world dominant power. And I know that hundreds of millions of people will be happy to see US collapsing ! Why would I know the date you simpleton? The date is with those who made “To big to fail”bailout of the Wall Street banks. They will decide when to “pull the plug” and again take huge profits out of that as well.
“The ignorance is bliss” and your ignorance is impressive. I can’t be bothered to explain you all . And I have no clue why you don’t know anything about what is going on. That is not my problem. The dollar can survive another 2 max 3 years at the best. Good bye and good riddance!
Absolutely your problem mate if the dollar goes down,but you’re obviously to dumb to understand it
you are too dumb you IDIOT many central banks are already decoupling from the dollar! buying gold and creating their own PAYMENT SYSTEM parallel to the SWIFT!
now fuck off loser !
Yup all those gold bars!
Russia will back its currency with gold, then America will, then the EU ….and at the end all those central banks will all have less than America,although the EU wouldn’t, but since the EU isn’t a country it doesn’t count, besides which the EU member states are all in NATO!
there was NO AUDIT of U.S. gold bullion for FIFTY YEARS ! you bastards have no gold at all ! Fort Knox is EMPTY !!!
there was NO AUDIT of U.S. gold bullion for FIFTY YEARS ! you bastards have no gold at all ! Fort Knox is EMPTY !!! now f**k off !!
Yup, but 007 James Bond saved it all!
Fort Knox is full of lovely gold
Not enough to back up the $24 Trillion in official debts, and a budget deficit now averaging a trillion dollars a year. The U.S. national debt is growing faster than GDP, a sure vital sign the U.S. economy is sick and on life support. The real problem is skill degradation. The United States doesn’t mass produce much of anything. Products are designed in the U.S. but than quickly mass produced overseas. This leads to a declining tax base and a steady multi hundreds of billions of dollars trade deficits year after year. Entire generations of Americans don’t know how to participate in a heavy industry economy and the loss of these skills will be difficult and costly to re-acquire. Any real observer of American economic life can see it, although living in Ohio I probably see it much more clearly than you do in your neo-con coastal elite enclave.
Your talking about legacy systems
The internet of things
These are the tech of the future, they’ll also make all those old legacy industrial processes more efficient,less about some bloke in blue overalls
Ive heard all these arguments before, they said it in the UK after Thatcher closed down old industry, but now the UK still has a world class engineers and science base,it’ll probably improve with the new government if they’re smart
I’d back America, it won’t be going down the league tables any time soon
To much negative talk I’m afraid!
And yet the industrial production of the USA is flat and the trade deficit, year after year remains terrible for the American economy, hemorrhaging wealth. Even in a robotics and 3d printing era the U.S. continues to lose. And don’t voters know it. Why did Trump smash Hillary’s blue wall in the upper midwest? Because high value jobs are harder to find and whole communities grow poorer by the year. As it turns out, robotics and new industrial printing technology are used in a healthy economy to complement heavy industry, not replace them. See, Korea as in Republic of. Or, explain the 77-1 disparity in shipbuilding tonnage between China and the U.S.? Explain the Container ships entering U.S. ports fully laden and low in the water and leaving half empty and high in the water? Something is wrong and not working here, even well into the millennial production era.
Ricky, we’re in a big transition
We’re living in historical times
How might the future look ?
Someone called Damon Vrabel created a video about ten years ago, you should watch it, because it paints a picture of how the future looks which i personally found more convincing than all this wiz bang war bollocks, you should check it out, you’ll find his video on YouTube,
Renaissance 2.0 financial empire
I have a problem, Having read this comment string bob, your comments scare the shit out of me, ZP is making serious and verifiably accurate statements and you’re replying with comments about 007. This means one of two things, either you’re out of your depth or you realize he’s correct. and that scares me.
How can he be correct?
eat you faeces and commit seppuko, dork!
Ok, whatever gets you excited!
we know that the illegal occupation of palestine is drawing to its end and that the occupying squatters/hymies all will be 6 feet under pushing up daisies or be dried wet stains in the palestinian sand. a day to behold.
How do you get a ” dried wet stains”?
Surly thats a contradiction?
not at all, just watch a beach and see where the stranded jellyfish have dried out and left the imprint of itself in the sand – lasts just as long as the sand is dry which translates as dried wet stains. you obviously never been on a beach, sitting at home in mum’s basement wanking and trolling and dreaming of a better thing to do than supporting the most vicious criminal regime in the world.
Believe sons of ancient civilization (is it over 10 000 Years???) got silk road thing through. From China point of view silk road is very relevant (it is a question “to grow or not to grow”). “moving towards localised manufacturing and consumption” – only profit dictates those directions in “liberal economy” (otherwise corporations would keep american jobs) while in “planned economy” profit is one of many vectors that result with direction. Most of the world is desperate for functional infrastructure and China is re/building it as mutual interest for the third world and China itself. “load of old rotting infrastructure and a navy to go with it” – if this sentence is asked on the street, noone would say China
don’t pay bob any attention, he’s teamed up with joke321, and arziel askanazi and others of that ilk. they deserve no part of your time.
Q: Can China Confront and Defeat the U.S. Navy?
You don´t need to read the article. The money pockets you can send me. :DD
of course they can, american rustbuckets and seamanship like navigational aids weren’t available and no intelligent housekeeping/husbandry to think of. the us navy is a joke even if you include the 13 carriers that are as efficient as the f35s. . they would be sunk soon after departing their home ports on the west coast.
And what role coward insane wahhabis have in this scenario
A well constructed analysis piece from Brian Kalman and one that would be difficult to articulate against, many thanks Brian.
One area that does need closer scruitiny would be the US ability to match the Chinese future plans or for that matter even to stay in range of the Chinese vision. Naval expansion is very expensive, much more than any other service area with the exception of space. The US is in financial melt-down though the vast majority of their people are blissfully unaware of the impending mess they have saddled themselves with 26 Trillion in debt and absolutely no way of paying it back without a 50% increase in taxes. Wars and gung-ho military adventures will only hide this for so long eventually the rest of the world will want their money back. An even bigger threat in the determination of many nations now including Russia and China to have the $Dollar replaced as the trading coinage. This alone will absolutely emasculate the USA forever