+Type+730+CIWS+C-805+602+anti-ship+land+attack+cruise+missiles+171234+(1).jpg)
+Type+730+CIWS+C-805+602+anti-ship+land+attack+cruise+missiles+171234+(2).jpg)
+Type+730+CIWS+C-805+602+anti-ship+land+attack+cruise+missiles+171234+(5).jpg)
Thanks for the articles Paralus!
I put forward the theory that as things currently stand, we're building a parity force.
Left unsaid is the fact that I see us being potentially outclassed by the Chinese, particularly in the realms of air and sea power. Luckily Paralus supplied me with articles from several respected authors that back my points.
The articles are from the Diplomat and its now on my must read list. You can check them out here and here.
Once you've read them, tell me you aren't a bit concerned with the direction that our Navy is headed in with regards to a potential faceoff with the Chinese.
http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2013/07/08/chinas-shipbuilding-sector-faces-difficulties/
ReplyDeleteThis article is relevant to the topic, to a degree.
not really. as a matter of fact thats even more worrying. as a commenter pointed out the simple solution is to simply augment the decline in civilian spending with military products. 1400 ship yards going idle? boost production by having them build aircraft carriers, destroyers etc...this is not good news for us. China has to keep its people employed to prevent unrest. they don't have a safety net like western countries.
DeleteWere the PRC government to follow that path, economics would rear its ugly head. Comments on The Diplomat in support of certain PRC paths often come from the fifty cent brigade. Look at the increasingly sluggish outlook of the PRC economy. Problems seen in the ship building sector are the same problems seen in many other sectors.
DeleteThe path your suggesting, Solomon, sounds a lot like the old soviet model. That's the same one that was eventually described as "building a shovel, to dig the ore, to build the smelter, to melt the ore, to build the shovel..." For the Chinese to be a long term threat they have to sustain productivity and comprehensive growth. The short term flash we see as they fall from their apex won't do it. I'm not saying they won't keep growing, just that in decline they are not a sustainable threat.
Deletenot exactly. the Soviets didn't have the advantage of western economic development in their country. for the Chinese its more like we build the shovel, we dig the ore, we build the smelter so that they can build more shovels.
Deletethat's the primary difference that's being overlooked. we're having to work overtime to make sure that our companies aren't selling dual use technology and despite our best efforts they're doing it for all to see. when we build computers, jet engines, modern shipbuilding tech, large trucks etc...all because they have cheap labor then we're automatically building the very war machine that will threaten us.
the best example is the space program. we were once far ahead. now the Chinese are using a space capsule that will be generally similar to our own, they have a rudimentary space station that is soley operated by them (and they're working on a larger model) and they plan on landing men on the moon. does that sound to you like a country that is having trouble building engines for its airplanes or won't soon get it worked out?
Nope. Not one bit concerned. The articles seem rather silly: its got phased array radars and VLS = Burke-like.
ReplyDeleteA "parity force"? Because China is now the...7th navy...to have fixed arrays on ships? I can understand making the argument that the Chinese have advanced quite a bit on account of their stealing and copying. But the argument that somehow this is a development that turns the USN into a "party force", requires a bit more beef. The USN has, what, about 100 Aegis cruisers and destroyers planned, 12 carriers etc, all with superior weaponry, electronics, crews, tactics, training etc. And we're freaking out over the resurrected corpse of a Soviet POS carrier and a couple of destroyers?
This from the country that still can't develop a decent jet engine. These ships are a long way from anything comparable to a Burke, or the systems on a Burke.
ok. then consider this. Boeing and Airbus with their compadres Pratt&Witney, General Electric and the European versions of those companies are in China right now building airplanes and engines. additionally China has shown the ability to reverse engineer technology.
Deleteyou talk about a nation not able to build jet engines? guess what. we said the same thing when we first saw a reverse engineered copy of the B-29. many talked shit about the Soviet capabilites and when we later saw the Mig-15 in korea, those same voices were gobsmacked but they lucked out because everyone had forgotten how wrong they were.
what replaced this insanity? the big red scare led by the same people saying that we were so far ahead of the Soviets thatt they weren't a threat worth taking seriously.
you're amusing me more than angering me though. your arguments are bordering on laughable. i bring up articles that show that Chinese shipbuilding is several magnitudes greater than our own and you come back with the retort that "we're counting hulls now"...to that i simply respond seriously?
that's all the Navy and Marine Corps does! They count hulls and then the Navy either defends those numbers or crys for more. now they're muzzled and telling us that 285 warships worldwide is good enough when 50 of those ships will be poorly armed LCS. several dozen are escorts that will be tied to either Amphib or carrier escort and the rest are life extended relics.
meanwhile you dismiss the idea of a FAC being able to take out your vaunted LCS while not realizing that supersonic missiles are being developed that will make those ships powerful beyond their size would indicate.
you seem to be an apologist for the current defense thinking. if i'm right and you are then let me tell you that you're wrong as three left feet. it will be a shame to see but i look forward to the first engagement between US Marines and Chinese forces. the US will get the shit kicked out of it but it'll be a nice wake up call to those like you and the people that focused more on social engineering than warfighting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would say expect the Chinese to play a long game. They'll develop and play the asymmetric warfare game to give us a ball to keep our eye on, all the while they are trying to equal and surpass us in parity forces. That will be in capacity and technology. But if something happens to causing a shooting incident it will be a mistake, not intentional. No, when they come at us, they'll use our extensive treaty obligations against us. Encourage the islamic zealots to try and reestablish the caliphate at the expense of Europe or as a threat to Europe and the Chinese split our attention nicely, just as they have been doing with India through Pakistan for years.
ReplyDeleteI don't really worry about China will look like in ten years. Fifty years is another issue.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't worry about Japan in 1890. We felt differently in 1940.
Part of articles that I think some are missing is the economy of scale. It is already cheaper for them to build a frigate than it is for us. And the more they build, the less expensive per unit they become.
Yes, they are a small Navy and we shouldn't worry about them in the short-term. If we are assuming that the size Navy they have now is going to stay relatively the same size, we won't need to worry about it.
But what if this is the nucleus of a larger, modern navy? What if this is the Chinese Naval version of a German Reichswehr?
Recruiting and training enough sailors and technicians to operate such a force so it won't happen overnight, but they could setup a plan to double the size every 25 years, giving them enough time to build and train. Let's assume anything that was in service in 2005 will be retired within 20 years.
To double their 2005 fleet size (170) AND replace the retired hulls, they'd need to build 340 hulls. That would be 13.6 hulls per year over 25 years. Considering the number of ship yards, that would be a reachable goal considering they already built 40+ ships in between 2005-2012 (6+ hulls/yr).
In 25 years, are we going to have a Navy of 340 ships?
I'm not trying to be chicken little and create a panic, but it's time we sit up and take notice.