U.S. Navy at smallest point since 1913! Good luck with "Pivot" Against China!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
How can the US navy meet the challenge that China is building a massive navy with a super small force. Yes, US ships have a lot of firepower however China is building a 'carrier killer' that can hit moving vessels 1000 miles away. How is that 'change' working for you? Take a look:


the-diplomat.com...




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Why does the US need a Navy to oppose China? America would never win a land war against China. The Navy would primarily be back up for ground based troops in such a conflict. As long as they have air superiority and rely on their higher tech (ie, missiles), if there was ever a conflict, the US would not be undermanned by having a smaller navy.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
theres a change in tactics, the type 45 british ship can detect and take out a plane anywhere in a very large area along with being able to take out most missles fired at it but only has one main 'gun' in the traditional sense so wouldnt even put a dent in a old fashioned destroyer

so these days its about having the right stuff in place before its needed rather than having to sail a fleet half way around the world which reduces the actual need for ships as one modern ship is probably the equiv of 2-4 ships from the 1970's



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I believe one Ohio class submarine has more destructive firepower than the Pacific fleet during WW2[save to say the whole navy during that period], more then ever is it about quality not quantity..



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Foppezao
 


Exactly. I read during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (yes i am old!) that a Hind D Helicopter gunship had a similar amount of firepower to a WW2 battleship. Things have definitely come on since then too (much more destructive firepower).

If the Scramjet technology really takes off, there will be very limited need for a Navy.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I have heard the quantity versus quality argument here.

Rarely has quality ever won out against quantity in the long run. In the sort term, single battles or short campaigns (e.g. Desert Storm I) sure. But the war fighting value of industrial production is King (e.g T-34 vs Tiger). Always will be. High speed weapons or systems only provide a margin exploitable for a limited period. Then the enemy catches up (e.g. GPS guided bombs versus Russian built scramblers).

There is another factor to be considered with today's military. Like it or not, Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines are not profitable compared to the latest gadget. So the sales pitch is keeping our young-ins' out of harm's way with technology. Never mind we cannot afford more trigger pullers because we "need" fighter planes 8 generations ahead of everybody else. Never mind in Iraq and Afghanistan it was the dudes on the ground making a difference. Heck the whole reason it took so long is those Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines are not as effective as the latest do-dad your defense contractor can provide. Do you want to be remembered as the President/Senator/Congressman who won the war with CNN ready video feed or instead got a whole bunch of American kids killed like the Dark Ages?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
dead soldiers cost more than missiles in PR terms as no one like to see coffins coming off planes and grieving widows crying so its better to spend millions on better tech so theres less soldiers fighting which will mean less bad PR as i seem to remember with the vietnam war it was the dead soldiers returning that did more to stop the war than the politicians did



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
One of the things not mentioned here is that while the US is using better tech. Much of the chips and boards come from...China.


But why are we developing new ships when we have the Boneyards full with ships ready to be retrofitted?
The platform is already built, they just need to be updated.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I suppose it depends how much work needs to be done to a ship to upgrade it versus build a new one as by the time you've altered the ship to accomodate new power plants/engines it probably requires so many alterations that all the bulk heads and its structural setup has become a right bodge that will give some poor tech guys nightmares for the next 20 years having to work around the bodges



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Any war with China would be economic, not military based.

China would squash the US economy in about 24 - 48 hours, there would be a massive economic crash in the USA followed by the rest of the World, and China will win the war without sending out the fleet, without putting boots on the ground, and without actively engaging the massively oversized US military.

It has already been proved that the Chinese Government are behind several high profile (and successful) computer hacks on US infrastructure and command structure, the US has made themselves too vulnerable by being too reliant on easily breached technology.

Even if a war were military based, most of the electronics and computers that the USA needs to run its military and weapons systems come from China. Without those parts, they would be dead in the water.
edit on 2-4-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
china doesn't need a navy....they just need to cash in their U.S. treasury bonds....the economic downfall of the U.S. would have a much more devastating effect than any navy would have. the chinese would not have to risk the death of 1 soldier, to bring the U.S. to it's knees



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


The English, their dominions and empire were the preeminent naval powers of 1913, not the United States.

But today it's the United States Navy which has the whip hand. By a mile. And today, the English are a very distant second. Or possibly even third, behind the Marine Nationale (France).

I don't buy your OP at all. Sorry !



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Given that the US Navy still has no equal (or even near equal) I wouldn't say any luck is required.

20 years from now maybe.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 




articles.businessinsider.com...

I believe we had a thread a couple of years ago about those Chinese made chips and semiconductors which are widely used in tomahawks etc.Last year the US bought 59.000 phony chips which even had a backdoor and could be remotely shut down.These so called trojan horse circuits are very hard to detect.
It seems the free market and electronics which the US are so fond of might work against them.
edit on 2-4-2012 by Foppezao because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
hehe this is one made me laugh
Chinese future aircraft carrier concepts



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
It is all about quantity and quality. The US Navy has both.



This is the total US Defense expenditure compared to other nations. As for the US Navy in particular:

The US Navy is the largest in the world with 284 ships. Its total ship tonnage is larger than the next 13 biggest navies combined.

The United States has 11 active aircraft carriers. The rest of the world combined only has 10 active aircraft carriers, and the capacity of the larger US carriers vastly overpowers the rest of the world's smaller ships.

The United States has 71 nuclear submarines. The rest of the world has only 63 nuclear submarines combined.

Source

Those concerned about the Chinese "carrier-killer" have good company. The top-brass see the threat of the DF-21D as very real. This is the primary reason that the Office of Naval Research has fast tracked the development of laser cannons on board ships. Link. Personally, I think it was a smart move to separate the Free Electron research from the solid state research.

Plus, the US Navy will have "Frickin Laser Beams attached to 'em".

I am a pacifist and know that is pretty cool.
edit on 2-4-2012 by LordOfArcadia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Yeah, such distorted facts.

Smallest in physical quantity of ships, Largest ever in the history of the known world with destructive capacity due to weapons and platform technological improvements.

Fear mongering will get you no where on this board.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by travis911
 


Why does the US need a Navy to oppose China? America would never win a land war against China. The Navy would primarily be back up for ground based troops in such a conflict. As long as they have air superiority and rely on their higher tech (ie, missiles), if there was ever a conflict, the US would not be undermanned by having a smaller navy.


A more correct analogy would be that a super power fighting another super power would evolve into Mutually Assured Destruction. Nobody wins.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by babybunnies
Any war with China would be economic, not military based.


Keep in mind that most wars are fought for economic reasons. Certainly, some might profess that some wars have been fought for loftier ideals: i.e; freedom, democracy – liberty, but, ultimately, war is an economic action or, conversely, an economic reaction (such as opposing economic trade sanctions).


Originally posted by babybunnies
China would squash the US economy in about 24 - 48 hours, there would be a massive economic crash in the USA followed by the rest of the World, and China will win the war without sending out the fleet, without putting boots on the ground, and without actively engaging the massively oversized US military.


Yes babybunnies, China could certainly win an economic confrontation. China could easily make the economic moves that would leave the US and, as a result, the rest of the Western World in economic shambles. Keep in mind, however, that any such act would similarly affect the Chinese economy.

The Chinese might profess to be “Communist” but over the past few decades, China has taken to a form of “controlled Capitalism” that has left this giant nation financial entangled with the global economy.



Originally posted by babybunnies
It has already been proved that the Chinese Government are behind several high profile (and successful) computer hacks on US infrastructure and command structure, the US has made themselves too vulnerable by being too reliant on easily breached technology.


Yes, China has breached aspects of American infrastructure and command structures. These have been publicized on a number of occasions. What hasn't been publicized have been "our own" incursions into Chinese command structures.

While I do not have any evidence of these sorts of American 'forays' into Chinese computer systems, it would be very safe to assume that the US has similar capabilities. The Chinese certainly do not maintain a monopoly on these capabilities.



Originally posted by babybunnies
Even if a war were military based, most of the electronics and computers that the USA needs to run its military and weapons systems come from China. Without those parts, they would be dead in the water.


Should China and the US become embroiled in a military conflict, I have no difficulty believing that the US would be able to “gear up” to meet it's tech requirements. It would otherwise be foolhardy to believe that the US does not have sufficient replacement capabilities for their short-term technological needs.

It is quite clear that the US is considerably in the lead when it comes to the quality of their military forces and Navy. US technologies give them a tremendous lead but, perhaps, their greatest asset is their military history, tactics and training. Whereas the Chinese have only recently made forays into becoming a modern Naval power, for instance, the US has a long history being a Naval power and they have developed a strong heritage in this area. Some might discount having such a heritage as being inconsequential but in times of conflict, heritage and traditions play a powerful role because, ultimately, any army or navy is only as good as the soldier and sailors who comprise them.

What does concern me, in relation to any possible military engagement with China is the possibility that the nuclear deterrent – M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) – would cease having any validity. Unlike the US, China, given their huge population and their “mindset”, might very well be able to absorb any nuclear attack. extra DIV



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
china doesn't need a navy....they just need to cash in their U.S. treasury bonds....the economic downfall of the U.S. would have a much more devastating effect than any navy would have. the chinese would not have to risk the death of 1 soldier, to bring the U.S. to it's knees


I hear this same tired drivel all the time. First they can't, 2nd China does not own a majority of US debt, in fact Japan owns almost the same amount.


That’s right, the biggest single holder of U.S. government debt is inside the United States and includes the Federal Reserve system and other intragovernmental holdings.


U.S. Govt. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion

China debt holdings: $1.132 trillion

Japan debt holdings: $1.038 trillion

Please stop parroting this nonsense.



new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join