China to have 150 more ships than US by 2028 under Biden budget, Navy secretary admits

[Vrenn]

All they have to do is swerve and theyll miss by three miles ...ok

While prop driven bears have snuck up on em

Prop driven Bears can turn, bob and weave. And they don't sneek up on carriers. If you didn't notice, there were a couple of F-18s or F-35s just off the picture. Your heroes leave that part out. If the Bear were to try and open his weapons bay, he would be a memory before his doors could open. Even if he were to try and launch off his wings, he would be dead and the missile fired would lose track. Most missiles for attacking ships are subsonic because they have to maneuver. Well, all except for those Unicorn Missiles that China says they have.

Not really
white men are checking out of society and the military ....this country doesn't build things like they used to...the gears of ramping up production in this backwards freakshow are slow

S
L
O.


Slow

More gibberish.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Prop driven Bears can turn, bob and weave. And they don't sneek up on carriers. If you didn't notice, there were a couple of F-18s or F-35s just off the picture. Your heroes leave that part out. If the Bear were to try and open his weapons bay, he would be a memory before his doors could open. Even if he were to try and launch off his wings, he would be dead and the missile fired would lose track. Most missiles for attacking ships are subsonic because they have to maneuver. Well, all except for those Unicorn Missiles that China says they have.




More gibberish.

Yeah cause the military branches are not experiencing recruitment troubles

But I'm sure they can throw up shipyards and ramp up weapons production across the board overnight

Those swerving carriers are not invincible

 

[Vrenn]

Yeah cause the military branches are not experiencing recruitment troubles

But I'm sure they can throw up shipyards and ramp up weapons production across the board overnight

Those swerving carriers are not invincible

Sure they are having recruitment problems but nothing has changed since I served. We always got the job done and didn't bother pissing and moaning about it. I would rather have a short detail of highly trained and motivated military than a bunch of over inflated poorly trained people standing around in green pickle suits. We win, you lose. Get used to it. And even when we have one hand tied behind our backs.

 

[rightwinger]

As you know, President Biden invited Russia to invade Ukraine. Just so it was a "MINOR INCURSION".

Jan. 20, 2022, 10:48 AM EST / Updated Jan. 20, 2022, 7:33 PM EST
By Mo Abbas
President Joe Biden’s prediction that Russia will invade Ukraine and his suggestion that the West’s response could be more muted for a “minor” incursion drew swift criticism from Washington to Kyiv, with some accusing him of giving Russia the green light to attack.
###

Why do you so steadfastly defend Communist China when their indisputable goal is to "annex" the United States and much of the rest of the world?

As you know, China is churning out attack and defensive submarines rapidly. Both nuclear and diesel/battery. They have a massive submarine base built inside a mountain, the access for subs is underwater. So we really have no accurate idea of how many they have or where they are.

You do recall that thanks to President Carter and President Clinton Communist China has control of the ports at each end of the Panama Canal, don't you? You know, the greatly enlarged facility.

Are you being willfully ignorant or are you seriously this uninformed about the current world dilemma? My guess is your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The man YOU voted for called Putin a Genius for invading and mocked NATO

Our President built a global resistance to Russia and strengthened NATO as a response

 

[rightwinger]

China: Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kazajhstan, Laos, Myanmar.

Oh yes, "none" indeed.

There is no mutual defense agreement with Russia
N Korea needs China for their defense and China is not thrilled with the agreement

The others are minor players in global military strength.

 

[Markle]

The man YOU voted for called Putin a Genius for invading and mocked NATO

Our President built a global resistance to Russia and strengthened NATO as a response

 

[rightwinger]

Prove what I posted is wrong Skippy

 

[Markle]

Prove what I posted is wrong Skippy

 

[rightwinger]

See you are still shooting blanks

 

[Kruska]

As long as the missiles are hypersonic, they can't manuever. The carrier may not cooperate in this attack. You want to swarm a carrier, slow them down and allow them to change direction as the carrier changes direction. The US leads in the hypersonic realm but are not going to waste their time and money in an attack missile. But they are working on Hypersonic vehicles for spying.

Sorry, but you do not seem to know as to how a hyper-sonic missile works - it does not shoot of blind with mach 9 and hits it's target blind with mach 9.
And yes the "warhead" can maneuver actually very well.

 

[Kruska]

Despite having a smaller navy, France has higher quality ships than China, and a far greater ability to project its naval power around the world.

All that this statement proves, is that you got no idea as to what you are talking about - in regards to naval issues.
Neither do I, since I do not consider myself to be a naval expert - but I am in constant contact with people who are "naval - experts" and they wouldn't even bother to reply onto such a ....... statement.

China is nowhere near as capable of projecting true blue-water naval power as the US Navy. Not even close.

Correct - and China never claimed or claims this, since it has no intentions towards military global hegemony, such as the USA and it's "Allies"
But on China's home-turf - the blue water USN has already lost the dominance and ability to enforce US policy via military intervention. And that's all that counts for China for the next 10-15 years.

In 30 years time? - most likely China will be the superior blue water navy.

China and the e.g. BRICS states are aware that the USA will dismantle itself - due to it's pathetic political in-fights and political inability to come up with economic and social reforms.
So China will and is making sure that the USA poses no military threat towards China and it's immediate neighborhood - whilst watching/studying it's decline.

 

[Mushroom]

The others are minor players in global military strength.

Only two nuclear powers with the second and tenth largest militaries on the planet. "Minor players" indeed.

 

[Mushroom]

And yes the "warhead" can maneuver actually very well.

Actually, no it can not. There is something called "physics" at play, and why things like hypersonic craft not only generally operate at high altitude, but why they are not very maneuverable at all.

In things like flight, speed is of critical importance when it comes to being maneuverable. Lower speed objects can maneuver much more readily than higher speed objects. The faster an object goes, the less maneuverable it is. This is then compounded as in order to operate as such speeds control surfaces are shrunk, which affect such things even more.

This is why the most maneuverable fixed wing military aircraft date to around the First World War. Then after that comes those of the Second World War. And as one gets closer to the modern age, maneuverability goes down every decade as the aircraft got faster and faster.

With one of the few exceptions being specific aircraft like the A-10, which was purposefully built "slow", with a wing structure that would seem familiar to anybody during WWII. For as modern as an A-10 is, it's speed unlike most current aircraft which is measured in multiple of the speed of sound clocks in at roughly the speed of a WWII fighter.

One simply can not change the laws of physics and have a hypersonic object in the atmosphere be "maneuverable", no matter how much you wish it was so. It is traveling so fast and has such small control surfaces that is simply not possible.

 

[Mushroom]

In 30 years time? - most likely China will be the superior blue water navy.

I doubt it, as their Navy is in reality just an upgunned coast guard. They have none of the doctrine or training needed to turn such into a "navy", and ef they did they likely would never catch up to the US.

And that is simply a fact. This is something the US has been specializing in for well over a century now. Operating it's ships half a world away and keeping them supplied and operational. Even in active war zones for months to years at a time. And not just single ships like China does, but dozens of different ships all operating together as a cohesive group.

Oh no, when it comes to naval doctrine, China has not even put on the training wheels yet, let alone started to peddle down the sidewalk. They have yet to grasp even the basics of fleet operations, of logistics to keep their ships supplied away from port, of UNREP and zoned defenses, and a great many other things that a real navy does as naturally as breathing. The quality of the ships does not matter worth a damn if they are not able top operate together as a fleet.

Pick your favorite team sport, then assemble a team out of players from a dozen different teams. Give them no practice or experience with working with each other, then tell them they are playing in the Olympics. That should give you a good idea of how the PLAN would operate against the US Navy. The US has been doing such since the 1800s, China has never done it ever. And even the occasional dog and pony shows they do are a complete joke.

Putter around as a "fleet" for about 2 weeks, get a single UNREP then turn around and immediately return to their ports. The PLAN has long been a joke in Naval circles because it sees far more time in port than any other Navy other than the post-Soviet Russian Navy. Even the Indian Navy does more serious naval operations and is far more experienced than that of China. And to be honest if the two ever came to blows, I think that all things being equal the Indian Navy would eat the Chinese Navy for lunch. Because they really are a professional Navy, and has been operating as such since they were founded.

Hell, how seriously China considers their Navy can be seen in their very name, the PLAN. China always has and always will be a land power. And the People's Liberation Army Navy has always been a distant third behind the PLA and PLAAF. And has never operated as anything other than a coast guard or 2 week dog and pony shows. And even if they start to change how they operate, it will take decades to see changes. As they will have to cycle for decades to get such down. Because absolutely nobody in the PLAN is experienced in this at all, and I have seen absolutely no indication that they are or ever will change this.

The first time they conduct a 6 month fleet operation in another ocean where 90% of their supplies they bring in themselves via ship, I will admit that is the very first baby step. But they can not even do that, with two weeks being the extent of their ability by all indicators.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Chinas military isn't involved in "controlling" it's citizens at all - but the US military is involved in controlling around 3 billion people around the planet, plus it wants to control another 5 billion.

Tell that to the pro-democracy protestors at Tiananen Square, or Hong Kong. The Chinese Communist Party regularly uses military troops to control the populace.

 

[Mushroom]

Tell that to the pro-democracy protestors at Tiananen Square, or Hong Kong. The Chinese Communist Party regularly uses military troops to control the populace.

This is obvious simply by looking at their equipment.

One of their main tanks is still the Type 59.

That is literally just a Chinese made copy of the T-54, a Post-WWII era tank. It's closest equivalent in US equipment would be the M46 Patton. That was later replaced with the M47 and M48 Patton, then the M60 Patton, then the M1 Abrams.

The above photo is instantly recognizable to any of my generation, as it was taken in 1989. Now I would love to have anybody explain to me why they had over 8,000 of those tanks, as they were completely obsolete against modern military forces of the time. The answer is the same as why they still have almost 1,000 in their inventory today over 3 decades later.

They are not for use against outside threats, but against their own population.

Even the T-62 tanks that Russia is pulling out of museums are significantly better than these things are, the US has not used tanks like that in over half a century. Yet China still keeps them, because against internal protestors they are perfect.

 

[22lcidw]

This is obvious simply by looking at their equipment.

One of their main tanks is still the Type 59.

That is literally just a Chinese made copy of the T-54, a Post-WWII era tank. It's closest equivalent in US equipment would be the M46 Patton. That was later replaced with the M47 and M48 Patton, then the M60 Patton, then the M1 Abrams.

The above photo is instantly recognizable to any of my generation, as it was taken in 1989. Now I would love to have anybody explain to me why they had over 8,000 of those tanks, as they were completely obsolete against modern military forces of the time. The answer is the same as why they still have almost 1,000 in their inventory today over 3 decades later.

They are not for use against outside threats, but against their own population.

Even the T-62 tanks that Russia is pulling out of museums are significantly better than these things are, the US has not used tanks like that in over half a century. Yet China still keeps them, because against internal protestors they are perfect.

A lot of truths. However, they are coming from a few decades ago until now with the massive military buildup. Quite impressive. We have at it much longer. Much much longer. Modern missiles make up for youth a little.

 

[Couchpotato]

Japan's blue water navy is more formidable than China's.

 

[Mushroom]

A lot of truths. However, they are coming from a few decades ago until now with the massive military buildup. Quite impressive. We have at it much longer. Much much longer. Modern missiles make up for youth a little.

But they are still using those Korean War vintage tanks as one of their main tanks.

And no, "modern missiles" do not make up as much as some may think. Of as much if not more importance is training and doctrine.

In 1991 Iraq had one of the largest and most modern militaries in the world in terms of equipment. However, their doctrine was hopelessly outdated compared to that of the US and NATO partners. And in Ukraine the flaws on the Russian military doctrine have been laid bare for all to see in the last year. They found themselves yet again bogged down by a military force that is able to exploit the weaknesses in that doctrine.

And in a navy that is even more important, as there are multiple types of ships in a fleet, and each have their roles. And the main ships traditionally have been battleships and carriers. But in the modern era, it is carriers alone. And then in support you have cruisers, destroyers, and frigates in some navies. Now the US has not used frigates since the last of the Oliver Hazard Perry class was retired in 2015, but some do consider the role of the LCS in a modern fleet to be similar. And if it is ever required, we do have 11 Perry class frigates that can be brought back into service. As well as 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers.

A fleet at sea is not just a collection of ships, it is akin to a team with each having their positions and roles in either an offensive or defensive play. And that is how the US has been using their ships almost exclusively for over a century.

A carrier does not work alone, it goes to sea as a Carrier Strike Group. Composed of normally the carrier (and aircraft), one or two Ticonderoga class Cruisers, a Destroyer Squadron with 3 Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, 2 attack submarines, then the support ships ranging from fuelers and supply to maintenance and logistics ships. And they remain in the same groups for years so each of the ships and crew are familiar with their roles.

That is what is meant by "doctrine", and that of the PLAN is simply not there. They operate ships individually, like a coast guard. They almost never operate in groups, and actually spend most of their time in port unless they send out one or two for short missions generally of a few weeks or less.

In the end, it does not matter all that much how good the missiles might be, as doctrinally they are like a sand lot stickball team hoping to play against the Washington Nationals. Sure they suck, and last year played for 55 wins and 107 losses. But they are still an experienced team that has trained together and would tear up a bunch of amateurs. Even if they are of professional caliber but had never had to work together as a team. That is the PLAN, they have almost no doctrine or experience in how to operate as a real navy.

 

[Mushroom]

Japan's blue water navy is more formidable than China's.

India's blue water navy is more formidable than that of China.

It may lack the numbers, but they have 2 carriers, 11 destroyers, 12 frigates, and 19 corvettes (a class of ship the US has not used since WWII), And granted that is much smaller than the size of the PLAN, they actually do operate it as a fleet and regularly takes part as a fleet in international military exercises. A joint fleet operation with India sending a dozen ships to take part is par for the course for them, likely a holdover from the era of British rule as the navy has always been of critical importance to the British and likely something India retained.

China on the other hand rarely sends more than 2 or 3 ships to such exercises if they even participate.