Chinese Navy could surpass size of USN

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

Quote[/b] ]Rumsfeld Warns of Concern About Expansion of China's Navy

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: February 18, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that the Pentagon was closely monitoring the growth of China's navy as part of that country's overall military buildup.

"It is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to," Mr. Rumsfeld said when asked at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about intelligence projections that the size of the Chinese fleet could surpass that of the United States Navy within a decade.

The expansion of China's navy is just one aspect of Beijing's military expansion that Pentagon and intelligence analysts are watching. Mr. Rumsfeld noted that the Chinese military budget had experienced double-digit growth in recent years.

The concerns come as Mr. Rumsfeld has agreed in principle to pay an official visit to China later this year in what many analysts have interpreted as an effort toward mending military ties damaged after a Navy surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet collided in international airspace in 2001.

But a recent Chinese policy paper challenging the American military presence in the Pacific, and the Bush administration's concern about China's military buildup across the Taiwan Strait from Taiwan, has prompted some statements of tension.

"The People's Republic of China," Mr. Rumsfeld said, "is a country that we hope and pray enters the civilized world in an orderly way without the grinding of gears and that they become a constructive force in that part of the world and a player in the global environment that's constructive."

But, he said, "They've got competing pressures between the desire to grow, which takes a free economy as opposed to a command economy, and their dictatorial system, which is not a free system. And there's a tension there, and I don't know how it'll come out, but I quite agree with you that we need to be attentive to it."

Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said later that Mr. Rumsfeld did not mean to suggest China was not a civilized nation, only that it had been "an inward-looking government for decades and was now emerging as a global actor."

On Wednesday, Porter J. Goss, the central intelligence director, also warned of China's military expansion. Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said: "Beijing's military modernization and military buildup could tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region. In 2004, China increased its ballistic missile forces deployed across from Taiwan and rolled out several new submarines. China continues to develop more robust, survivable nuclear-armed missiles, as well as conventional capabilities for use in regional conflict."

On Wednesday Mr. Rumsfeld also offered a cautionary assessment of China's military activities.

"They're growing rapidly and they're making significant investments in defense capabilities, military capabilities," he told the House Armed Services Committee then.

"They are buying a great deal of equipment from Russia," Mr. Rumsfeld continued. "They're making an increasing amount of equipment. It's more advanced technologically. They're actively trying to get access to European technology by getting the arms embargo ban lifted from the European Union, which it looks like the European Union is along the track to do at some point. They're increasingly moving their navy further distances from their shores in various types of exercises and activities. And that's a reality."

http://nytimes.com/2005/02/18/politics/18military.html

Hmmm....what do we make of this? I remember rumblings on these boards about how China will eventually start wanting oil and make a play for the Middle East, and some months ago a Chinese sub was snooping around in Japanese waters...

I doubt that China would actually start campaigning - especially against Taiwan - since they seem to have fairly decent relations with their neighbors...seems to me that they'd have too much to loose if they started getting ornery.

So should we be worried?

[CAPAIRMAN 0]

They're probably doing it for the intimidation value. Smaller some countries would be scared to go up against the worlds largest of anything. The US navy will still rule the seas with quality, not quantity.

[hellfish6 7]

I think the Soviets outnumbered us too.

[denoir 0]

While China's and Japan's political relations are at an all time low, their economic cooperation is constantly getting stronger.

This year, China took the position as Japan's biggest trade partner - a position that incidentally the US held before. Anyway, a move on Japan is out of the question. I wouldn't be too worried about Taiwan either.

And to top it off, China has not invaded any countries or started any wars for a very long time - which is more than can be said for the US. So with the choice of a larger US navy or a larger Chinese navy, the world is probably safer with the latter as it is much more unlikely to be used.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Scary... this reminds me of Tom Clancy's Executive Orders...

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Aha, that is the reason why they buy all the steel they can get.

MfG Lee

[D34N 0]

Quote[/b] ]So with the choice of a larger US navy or a larger Chinese navy, the world is probably safer with the latter as it is much more unlikely to be used.

hahaha!, what are you saying that the Navy is 'overstreched'?!? The US put The USS Abraham Lincoln of the coast of Indonesia(for Tsunami relief operations, we have ONE Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf. How many AC does the PLAN have? I doubt PLAN will have as many AC as high quality as the US by 2010, they are still trying to work out their first one. (Still looking at old Australian and Russian AC Designs)

Edit: US Navy Deployment

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ] hahaha!, what are you saying that the Navy is 'overstreched'?!?

No Dean, he was saying that if one had to choose between a dominating chineese or an american navy he would go for the chineese simply because history has shown they are far less agressive. I agree with him as noone has started hostilities like the good ol' US of A in the latter part of the last century.

Besides, in a few years your navy will indeed be overstretched because your deficit cannot by definition pay for your navy in the long run. Simply put, you are looking at future financial problems with your navy. Guess we'll see an american ship churchyard like in Arkangelsk somewhere in US.

Ask the soviets what they had to do with the army when they couldn't afford it anymore.

Edit: I'm always puzzled when someone hold the "quality" of american warships as an argument. Anyone remember the japaneese build up their navy before WWII? Do you honestly believe US quality is so much ahead of eastern asian technology? Do you which area who produces the most, the cheapest high tech stuff in the world?

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!

[hardrock 1]

The US navy will still rule the seas with quality, not quantity.

If I were an American I would be worried about this. 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'm really scared that so much money could have been used for the people of its own country if there hadn't been that many wars and upgraded weapon systems in the past 50 years. And they even managed to get the people to be proud about it.

[Platoon RedHawk 0]

I usually don't get involved in these things but I am getting tired of the US bashing. Just because the many countries in the world care not to get involved in the mid-east doesn't mean someone shouldn't. If the American and British intelligence was wrong regarding the weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't actively seeking such devices. Let me remind you Iraq had exhibited the will to assault anyone at anytime they wished. I wouldn't doubt the fact they did have some of these weapons, admittedly in a small quantity. They have plenty of time to move them or ship them off to Iran, Syria, or any other like thinking nation or terrorist group. The USA invasion was announced will ahead of time. Remember those missiles they didn't but did have, Sadamm was an expert at stalling.

I believe the US will not doubt maintain its position on the seas and I believe even Great Britain is expanding its navy as well. This Swiss gentlemen needs to understand the economics of warfare goes beyond the sum of a balance sheet. Most American weapons are designed to operate with the fewest personnel possible, provide the sufficient wounding power VS killing individuals outright (wounded individuals require more care and are a larger drain), there are other factors such as their Air Force is second to none and can be refueled in-flight, the American communication, electronic, photograph and radar is far superior. Unless I am mistaken their warfare plans revolve around a total force effort.

Lastly, hindsight is 20/20, that is to say it is easy to point out mistakes after it is over. It is quite another to be in the hot seat when the pressure is on. If the United States returned to a strict isolation policy as it had in the early 1900's, the world in my opinion would be worse off. Maybe the rest of us (the world regardless of faith and ideology) should finally get together and do something besides complaining about the efforts of others. As I recall the Americans have always provided aid to others in disasters, when has the world come to the aid of the United States? I believe their education system is different from many European countries, that don’t mean it is inadequate and I sure it could use some improvement. But how can one develop advance technology without producing a few bright people? So they must be doing something right. We are all proud of our countries, I think the americans should be allowed to be proud of thiers.

[D34N 0]

Quote[/b] ]No Dean, he was saying that if one had to choose between a dominating chineese or an american navy he would go for the chineese simply because history has shown they are far less agressive. I agree with him as noone has started hostilities like the good ol' US of A in the latter part of the last century.

Makes Sense.

Quote[/b] ]Besides, in a few years your navy will indeed be overstretched because your deficit cannot by definition pay for your navy in the long run. Simply put, you are looking at future financial problems with your navy. Guess we'll see an american ship churchyard like in Arkangelsk somewhere in US.

Ask the soviets what they had to do with the army when they couldn't afford it anymore.

I'll worry about it if/when it happens.

Quote[/b] ]Edit: I'm always puzzled when someone hold the "quality" of american warships as an argument. Anyone remember the japaneese build up their navy before WWII? Do you honestly believe US quality is so much ahead of eastern asian technology? Do you which area who produces the most, the cheapest high tech stuff in the world?

No, this is not a 'American technology is much better than the Asians!' Nothing like that at all. This is a case basis, and in this case America has more ships of better quality than China does.

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!

America rarely has 'The Best', or the 'Most Advanced', exceptions being the US Navy, F-22, F-35, and B-2.The American military is the best because its the of its quality Equipment, Training and its massive force.. but most importantly because of its force projection.

[brgnorway 0]

America rarely has 'The Best', or the 'Most Advanced', exceptions being the US Navy, F-22, F-35, and B-2.The American military is the best because its the of its quality Equipment, Training and its massive force.. but most importantly because of its force projection.

Hi Dean!

Ok, I see what you mean and I did possibly jump to conclusions! So sorry for that!

However, do we know for sure that the quality of the chineese soldiers are worse than our own/US troops?

And is that potential benefit outweighed by the relative lack of US troops in comparison with the chineese seemingly endless troop resources?

[hardrock 1]

If the american and british intelligence was wrong regarding the weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't actively seeking such devices. Let me remind you Iraq had exibited the will to assault anyone at anytime they wished. I wouldn't doubt the fact they did have some of this weapon, admittily in a small quanity. They have plenty of time to move them or ship them off to Iran, Sryia, or any other nation or terrorist group. The USA invastion was announce will ahead of time. Remember this missiles they didn't but did have, Sadamm was an expert at stalling.

Now I'm pretty curious on who decides on who's got the right to invade a country, kill civilians and drive them into terror and to possess WMDs and who hasn't?

[brgnorway 0]

 

I believe you should take your many complaints and lack of knowledge over to the middle eastern thread where this is perhaps more suitable.

[D34N 0]

Quote[/b] ]If I were an American I would be worried about this. 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'm really scared that so much money could have been used for the people of its own country if there hadn't been that many wars and upgraded weapon systems in the past 50 years. And they even managed to get the people to be proud about it.

Throwing money at the education system won't help.. it is more fundementally flawed than that. But I think NASA's funding over the last 30 years could have been better.

Quote[/b] ]If the american and british intelligence was wrong regarding the weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't actively seeking such devices.

No. Iraq wasn't doing anythign with WMD develpment period.. See Charles Duelfer.

Quote[/b] ]Let me remind you Iraq had exibited the will to assault anyone at anytime they wished.

Saddam is Crazy and Stupid.. but he isn't stupid enough to try and attack anyone else again.

Quote[/b] ]The USA invastion was announce will ahead of time. Remember this missiles they didn't but did have, Sadamm was an expert at stalling.

Too bad he wasn't an expert with documentation and paperwork.. cause then the US wouldn't be in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Most american weapons are designed to operate with the fewest personnel possible, provide the sufficent wounding power VS killing individuals outright (wounded individuals require more care and are a larger drain), there are other factors such as thier Air Force is second to none and can be refueled in-flight, the american communication, electronic, photograph and radar is far superior.

This asks to start a chain of events that will cause a lock.

Quote[/b] ]Unless I am mistaken thier warfare plans revolve around a total force effort.

Yes, combined arms.

Quote[/b] ]As I recall the americans have alway provided aid to others in disasters, when has the world come to the aid of the United States?

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

[Platoon RedHawk 0]

Currently it is up to each individual country as the world does not have policing force, hence the failing of that orgainizaiton established at the end of the Napoleanic Wars (sorry I can't remember the name), the League of Nations, and the United Nations.

[D34N 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi Dean!

Ok, I see what you mean and I did possibly jump to conclusions! So sorry for that!

No problem, some Europeans say 'Oh no, not another flag-waving Yank!'

Quote[/b] ]However, do we know for sure that the quality of the chineese soldiers are worse than our own/US troops?

And is that potential benefit outweighed by the relative lack of US troops in comparison with the chineese seemingly endless troop resources?

I am not comparing the quality of troops, as that could spark meaningless uninformed debate. I am saying that the US has more highers quality ships specifically aircraft carriers.(Edit) The Chinese Military maybe be able to cough up 25+ men with guns, but if they don't have the means to move them its all for nothing.(/edit) I could go into the rest of the carrier group but I have to clean up and go out and get a new power supply for my All-In-Wonder X800 XT

[brgnorway 0]

Currently it is up to each individual country as the world does not have policing force, hence the failing of that orgainizaiton established at the end of the Napoleanic Wars (sorry I can't remember the name), the League of Nations, and the United Nations.

Hi!

The League of Nations was established in 1920 after the initiative of your former president Woodrow Wilson.

[HuNtA 0]

who then, shortly after starting it up, left, due to isolationism (yes, the americans did pussy about while we had to go on fighting, so nobody can everrrr say at all that the americans saved the british)

[D34N 0]

Quote[/b] ](yes, the americans did pussy about while we had to go on fighting, so nobody can everrrr say at all that the americans saved the british)

The US did not save the British, the British did a hell of a job fighting off the Germans, but we helped with the Lend-Lease Act.

[Blake 0]

No way Chinese Navy is going to surpass the USN in the next 10 years. That would require such a gigantic effort that they can't possibly afford it even with current economic growth. What they've done in recent years is that they've bought some old Soviet-era ships from russia and some Kilo-class diesel subs, that's it. You don't build massive navies from scratch as soon as you get blueprints on your hand, it takes decades. It requires lots thousands of experienced shipbuilding engineers, workers,r&d staff and facilities to initiate large-scale domestic production since we're not talking about tiny breadcrumb leftovers of the old Soviet Navy.

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.

Quote[/b] ]Chinese navy, the world is probably safer with the latter as it is much more unlikely to be used.

Quite the contrary, primary task for such a fantasy big-as-USN fleet would be strategic power projection and such capability certainly makes using such force attractive whenever Chinese national interests would require so, like Taiwan or Spartlay islands. The only thing that has kept China from projecting it's power elsewhere is the lack of assets to do so. And this way of thinking that China is somehow exceptionally un-confrontational in it's foreign policies is beyond me, take Korean War for example, support for Pol-Pot's genocidal regime in Cambodia, attack into Vietnam in late 70s, border wars with India and Russia etc.

[hellfish6 7]

I'm curious - how many of those ships included are small coastal craft? And IIRC, the Chinese Navy considers much of it's coast guard and coast watch vessels to be part of the Navy.

How many actual primary surface and subsurface combat vessels are they going to have? Certainly not more than the US. I don't even think they need that many - the US patrols all of the oceans, not just the South China Sea. China doesn't need a fleet that big.

[-MP-OFP-CRICON 0]

China and the US have held talks in Beijing aimed at building closer military ties.  

The talks involve Richard P. Lawless, a US deputy undersecretary of defense, and leaders of China's People's Liberation Army, including the People's Liberation Army deputy chief of staff, Xiong Guangkai.

China described the talks, which started on Monday, as the first dialogue of its kind with Washington on defense policy.

A spokesman for China's Defence Ministry, Tu Qiming, says the two sides expressed hope that the Taiwan question can be peacefully resolved.

"In fact, we wish the Taiwan question can be solved in a peaceful way, but Chen Shui-bian has been carrying on various kinds of activities aiming at Taiwan independence. Therefore, we wish the US would help us stop their moves towards independence."

Washington regards military ties with Beijing as a key part of their relations.

Contact was cut off following the collision of a US navy surveillance plane with a Chinese fighter jet in 2001, but relations have warmed over the past two years.  

Link:http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/1375/2005-2-1/102@202673.htm

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I can't believe that we have people here that would trust Communist China over the U.S. Are you people nuts? If China is expanding its military, it's doing it for a reason. They either feel threatened by U.S. influence or they want more weight to push around other nations. China is 1.3 billion people and growing, all those people need resources like water, oil, timber, coal, food, steel, etc. World demand for these goods are growing and prices are rising, especially for oil. All of that has to come from somewhere, right? What are they going to do if they can't get enough?

...Just speculating. Big, rich nations usually have big militaries, they have the manpower, so why not?

Quote[/b] ]If I were an American I would be worried about this. 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 think you have your priorities out of order. If they didn't put money into defence since the beginning of the cold war, then there probably wouldn't be much of a life standard left to defend in the first place. Besides, the U.S. has never been a social-democracy and never will be. So I see no need to criticise them over it, because if a social democracy is what Americans wanted, they would have had it by now.

[blackdog~ 0]

Aha, that is the reason why they buy all the steel they can get.

MfG Lee

Oh yeah, tell me about it. That's such a total joke (all the steel they have been stockpiling). Steel prices have skyrocketed all over the world and all because of China! I mean I can scrap one of my jeeps and buy two with the money made off of it (practically)... it's insane!