Chinese Navy could surpass size of USN

[Jblack 0]

BUZZARD @ Feb. 20 2005,15:10)]

I still remember when Japan was said to be taking over Europe and N. America.

And then their economy tanked.

Which makes the results found in recent NATO-sponsored Workshop in Universidade da Beira Interior that more worrying, laying bare the ties between the laws governing economic tendencies and the insurgence of great conflicts. It has been generally accepted that the Kondratieff cycles are a hard-fact law in action that act upon the economic conditions, and it was discovered that when the economies are in a bad shape or in the phase of recovery, it is a very propicious time for large-scale conflicts to arise. From that Workshop as well came conclusions that about in 30 years a MAJOR conflict will happen between the oriental and the ocidental countries, perhaps even a global-scale war. This is a very scary prospect because, compared to what the armies of the most powerful countries had in storage in the last two world-wide conflicts, the current weapons are of an unimaginable lethality. So, let's just hope that, since we're able to predict something, we may also be able to prevent another world-wide conflict from happening!

is there anywhere i can go to get more information on this cycle?

I've been saying to expect a war with China in the next couple of decades and maybe this could provide some truth to it.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Where did you get that news from jblack?  I ask because I've spent the past two years saying to friends and teachers that there'll be a war between "Oriental and Occidental" by the time my generation (19 years old now) starts assuming positions of authority, i.e. when we are in our forties/early fifties, which seems to gel with the prophesy in your post.

Whew, less than four months old-still postable .

P.S. Nice to see I'm not the only prophet around here also .

[SFWanabe 0]

I think the Soviets outnumbered us too.

You mean Russians. they arent called Soviets anymore. Now back to the subject at hand,Now a days the USN could prolly throw a real beating to both the Chinese navy and Russian navy esp. the Russian navy.

[SFWanabe 0]

I'm reminded of the novel "Invasion" by Eric L. Harry in which China invades the USA. It's basically military science-fiction, but very entertaining. Central to the background of the story are Chinese super-carriers. The main point of relevance is that weak politics can be even more disastrous than a weak military.

I'm interested though. Which countries can be expected to have decent force-projection capabilites in the next 10-20 years? (A battalion or two of airborne troops not being considered "decent").

Finally, I think the magic of the USA is that by the time China is deploying reasonable aircraft carriers, the US will be refining zero-g infantry combat. Which reminds me of another novel.

I've read it and I really liked it,but I doubt it will ever happen unless Bush is stupid enough to wage war against China.

[EiZei 0]

I think the Soviets outnumbered us too.

You mean Russians. they arent called Soviets anymore. Now back to the subject at hand,Now a days the USN could prolly throw a real beating to both the Chinese navy and Russian navy esp. the Russian navy.

I think the proper word is soviets since we are talking past things right?

[harley 3 1185 0]

Souring through this thread, I see some scary things, and some points I'd like to address.

Quote[/b] ]Guess we'll see an american ship churchyard like in Arkangelsk somewhere in US.

The U.S. Navy does scrap a large number of ships, but it also "Mothballs" a HUGE number.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone remember the japaneese build up their navy before WWII?

Yes, the Japanese built up their navy, but a large part of their fleet were refitted/converted warships built in Britain before World War One. A large part of their training was based on Royal Naval dogma. We Brits thus shot ourselves in the foot their, and the face, and the kidney etc...

Quote[/b] ]Go ahead and believe in your "technological superiority" while you can because it wont last much longer. Others can produce better, cheaper and more technological goods than you!

The U.S. has always had the qualitative, quantative edge in naval architecture since the end of World War Two, because when it builds ships, it builds them in VERY LARGE numbers. During the Cold War, the Office of Naval Reesearch was one of the most prolific innovators in the World. That's saying something.

Quote[/b] ]The USA spent so much money on weapon systems and technologies the last fifty years instead of putting money into the school system and strengthen the average life standard.

I agree wholeheartedly, but generally the Navy has spent its money well. The same cannot be said of the Army and the Air Force.

Quote[/b] ]The French in the Revolutionary war gave us guns and money. Kinda like the Bay of Pigs.. but with a positive result.

At the Bay of Pigs, there were only American-equipped Cubans, in not large numbers. In the War of Independence, the french sent the larger part of their Navy to North America to blockade the British, and sent thousands of troops to assist the Continental Armies. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Quote[/b] ]The French in the Revolutionary war gave us guns and money. Kinda like the Bay of Pigs.. but with a positive result.

Quote[/b] ]The League of Nations was established in 1920 after the initiative of your former president Woodrow Wilson.

Someone made a pithy remark about this comment involving isolationism. Wilson was an idealist, and he genuinely believed that a strong League would end war forever. However, before the League was to be ratified by the Congress, he had a stroke. He was too weak physically to combat the wave of isolationism which followe America's relatively cheap victory in the Great War. Congress refused to join the League, and the rest is history.

Quote[/b] ]Not even during height of Cold War and intensive 30-year+ buildup under Admiral Gorshkov the Soviet Navy came nowhere near the power of USN. Remember, it took from the French 20 years to design, build and test the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle alone.

In terms of the Undersea war, Gorshkov whupped the U.S.Navy. His submarines were quieter and more deadly than their American counterparts. The Americans might have excelled them in this department were it not for the maniacal grip of Admiral Rickover on the development of American Submarines-he refused to use several innovations which the Russians did use to great effect.

The Soviet fleet was large enough to play a part in Soviet grand strategy, which was enough. It may not have been so big as to take on the U.S.Navy, but it was large enough to wipe the floor with everyone else's after the 1970s.

The French have had hardly any experience at all in building Aircraft Carriers. If you can count the number of French carriers ever built on more than the fingers of both hands, I'll be a monkey's uncle. With France, governments change, policies change, funding changes. In America, there has always been adequate funding and initiative to keep the fleet strong.

Quote[/b] ]I can't believe that we have people here that would trust Communist China over the U.S. Are you people nuts?

I ain't arguing with you there .

Quote[/b] ]The Royal Navy beats them all.

Yes, thirty five ocean going combat ships designed to support a small landing force and provide an effective anti-submarine force in a relatively small area, and half of them can't put out to sea for lack of fuel! The Royal Navy is a Home waters force and nothing more, which is a disgusting fact.

Quote[/b] ]It's happened on several occasions, even the Canadian Navy has done it. Infact, I think the USN has the lowest score in these wargames. The Royal Navy manage to do even better. Although that isn't suprising seeing as our submarine fleet is the most potent in the world, even more so than the US Navy's because that's our nuclear deterant.

The Royal Navy, Canadian Navy and Australian Navy may have superbly crews, but in all navies only the best become Submariners. Same goes for the U.S.N. And they have a HUGE numerical superiority over all other navies to boot! As for our (British) Nuclear Deterrent, the French have more SSBNs than we do, and at least they arm theirs with their own missiles (unlike our ludicrously expensive Tridents).

Quote[/b] ]Despite the size of China's navy... they will all get sunk by superior US submarines such as the Los Angeles class and the Seawolf class

3 Seawolf class submarines built - they were so damn good they damn near broke the Navy's budget!

Quote[/b] ]And even if China has the technology to build massive amounts of warships that at least equal in quality as NATO ships.. it would take at least 20 years to do so.

In the 1980s, when the late President Reagan made the stupendous decision of calling for "a Thousand Ship Fleet", the U.S.N. built and recommissioned at least 250 by the end of his second term. That, in no uncertain terms, is BLOODY FAST. And this was when the U.S. Economy wasn't exactly stellar either. I'm quite sure that the Chinese could do it, but as has been mentioned, the quality would nothing like the U.S.Navy's.

The main focus of any rumours of war with China will always be Taiwan. Seeing as Beijing hasn't had control over the island since 1904 (first the Japanese, then the Nationalists), their whole attitude towards it is one of sheer, blind, childish idiocy. They got back Hong Kong and Macao. Why do they want Taiwan? Just because it shows what China could be? One day, the Chinese will get too bold, and then a U.S. Carrier Battle group will be involved, then all hell will break loose. And over what?

[SFWanabe 0]

I think the Soviets outnumbered us too.

You mean Russians. they arent called Soviets anymore. Now back to the subject at hand,Now a days the USN could prolly throw a real beating to both the Chinese navy and Russian navy esp. the Russian navy.

I think the proper word is soviets since we are talking past things right?

Maybe,but thats like refering to germans as Nazis if dont mind the extreme analogy.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Royal Navy beats them all.

Yes, thirty five ocean going combat ships designed to support a small landing force and provide an effective anti-submarine force in a relatively small area, and half of them can't put out to sea for lack of fuel! The Royal Navy is a Home waters force and nothing more, which is a disgusting fact.

Dont foget you cant fight and win if you look like girly men.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Pray tell me, SFWanabe, what the difference in "Girliness" is between the Uniforms of the Average Royal Navy sailor;

,

and that of the the Average U.S.Navy sailor?

.

[SFWanabe 0]

Well the USN dress uniform doesnt include shorts that make you look like a sissy.

[harley 3 1185 0]

DELETE

[harley 3 1185 0]

. You were saying?

,,

,.

[SFWanabe 0]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Atleast the rest of the US military doesnt look gay.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Lol, now you know the shocking truth behind the U.S. Navy. How can we beat the Chinese hordes during the summer, when everyone (even the women) wear shorts! Tell the Chinese our navies will fight them in the winter .

[SFWanabe 0]

I still think those shorts with those knee high socks is enough to make the enemy die laughing at us.

[Homefry 0]

I think the Soviets outnumbered us too.

You mean Russians. they arent called Soviets anymore. Now back to the subject at hand,Now a days the USN could prolly throw a real beating to both the Chinese navy and Russian navy esp. the Russian navy.

I think the proper word is soviets since we are talking past things right?

Maybe,but thats like refering to germans as Nazis if dont mind the extreme analogy.

Nazi != Country Name

USSR = Country name

[SFWanabe 0]

Huh?

[harley 3 1185 0]

There was such a thing as "Nazi Germany", describing the state of affairs there and the extent to which party was identified with the state.

"U.S.S.R." (or C.C.C.P.) was the acknowledged name of Russia after the October Revoluton, akin to "The United States of America".

Tada...

[Jblack 0]

Where did you get that news from jblack?  I ask because I've spent the past two years saying to friends and teachers that there'll be a war between "Oriental and Occidental" by the time my generation (19 years old now) starts assuming positions of authority, i.e. when we are in our forties/early fifties, which seems to gel with the prophesy in your post.

Whew, less than four months old-still postable .

P.S. Nice to see I'm not the only prophet around here also .

lol i've been saying the same thing for the last couple of years....

It's simple world politics, u don't get to be the big boy on the block (China) without knocking off the guy who's already on top (U.S.)

China might surpass the U.S. economically but militarily, i doubt that would happen for 20-30 years and by the time that happened i doubt the U.S. would let military research stagnate to zero.

[Homefry 0]

Huh?

!= means 'not equal'

= means 'equal'

Still confused?

[FatNinjaKid 0]

I can't believe that we have people here that would trust Communist China over the U.S. Are you people nuts?

Just how "communist" is China anyhow? Is it not a bit misleading to use a term that we once used to descibe the situation in the USSR? Maybe it is time replace the "communist" with something else. Oligarchy ?

[Daniel 0]

Oligarchy is probably a good definition of China. But they're still a good way away from Democarcy.

[*Pete* 0]

i would think, that if any country would have half a chance to beat china alone, it would be Russia.

that is not becouse they have better weapons or soldiers than the US, but simply becouse of the geographical location of Russia, they would not need to have to rely on supply routes over the seas, they could engage with tanks, aircraft, and soldiers almost immediatly.

while the US (without allies, no allowed to pass neutral territories) would have to win the war at sea first...and this should be a near impossible task, it would be fought near China itself, and on top of the Chinese navy the US would have to cope with fighters and cruisemissiles from the Chinese mainland, if the US carriers would be close enough to launch fighters, they would be close enough to get hit by missiles launced from China.

i just cant see how such a war could be won without nuclear weapons.

however, China would have to face the same difficulties would it ever attack the US.

its simply not possible.

but a war between Russia and China?...it would be brutal, and both sides could win it.

[Apollo 0]

i would think, that if any country would have half a chance to beat china alone, it would be Russia.

that is not becouse they have better weapons or soldiers than the US, but simply becouse of the geographical location of Russia, they would not need to have to rely on supply routes over the seas, they could engage with tanks, aircraft, and soldiers almost immediatly.

while the US (without allies, no allowed to pass neutral territories) would have to win the war at sea first...and this should be a near impossible task, it would be fought near China itself, and on top of the Chinese navy the US would have to cope with fighters and cruisemissiles from the Chinese mainland, if the US carriers would be close enough to launch fighters, they would be close enough to get hit by missiles launced from China.

i just cant see how such a war could be won without nuclear weapons.

however, China would have to face the same difficulties would it ever attack the US.

its simply not possible.

but a war between Russia and China?...it would be brutal, and both sides could win it.

I think you would be surprized about Russia's limited capabiety's in Azia ,Siberia isn't exactly rich in infrastructure ,it would be a logistical nightmare for Russia to campaign from their East Asian possesions ,while it would be logisticly easier for china to invade it.

Rather ,India comes in mind as a more powerfull counterweight ,a growing millitary and a manpower rich country with good ties to the west to supply it with modern equipment.However again there the Chinese hold some advantage with their control of tibet ,a conventional war between China and India would also be a logistical nightmare over land as the only land beween china and india either countain's rugged mountaines land ,jungle's with monsoen's ,or deserts ,neither having the infrastructure to support a large army.

The best place to stage an invasion of china from would porbably be north Korea ,hence China's involvement in the korean civil war.Any nation trying to invade china would most likely have to do it with a powerfull navy ,and put troops on the important coastline's of China in places where it can easily expand trough favourable land.Japan did bto ,attack trough Mantsjoeria from Korea and land troops all over the Chinese coasts.Yet while in that time Japan had a vastly technologicly superior army over China it just couldn't defeat it due to sheer logisitcal problems.

In any case ,invading china would be a nightmare ,logisticly and millitary ,to much manpower to defend the country.And it would be to costly ,in terms of human losses ,and in finances ,country's would go bankrupt over such a war.

On the other hand ,may i note that while the Chinese civilization is one of the oldest and traditionaly most powerfull one of the world for thousands of years ,China never really looked outward to project power ,rather had always inward policy's of defense.I wonder if so many thing's changed with the communist takeover ,after China's culture had a lot of elements witch were comparable to communism.Sure communist China annexed Tibet ,but thats about that ,and they had historical claims to it.

For the rest ,China's history is one of the most peacefull of the world ,except for some invasions from Mongols or japanese and a few civil wars ,you never saw any big chinese dynasty going on a conquering rampage in Asia ,except for the Mongol dynasty.

[Daniel 0]

It would make a very interesting OFP campaign: Russia gets attacked, America/NATO helps out - battles fought over invasion-staging islands off the east coast of Asia. Plus usefull addons like VME and RHS would make it very cool.

In fact, I might look into some of the locations...