Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?

This is a discussion on US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by swerve Portugal was decades later: decades of the British economy growing faster than the French. It was ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 5th, 2012   #31
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Portugal was decades later: decades of the British economy growing faster than the French. It was also a war which was a sideshow to France, which had far more troops occupied fighting to try to control Spain than ever faced the British & Portuguese armies.

Malta was also a generation after the American rebellion, & we didn't have to fight the French on land. The Maltese did that: they defeated the French garrison & began the siege. We (& for a long time the Portuguese) kept the French from being resupplied & reinforced by sea, & when the Maltese were no longer able to keep a large enough army in the field to maintain the siege provided (along with the Portuguese, for a while) reinforcements - as did the Kingdom of Naples.

You've conflated wars spread over more than 50 years during which British wealth & power was (despite the loss of the North American colonies) growing faster than that of France, & only one of which was fought with mainly 'British' (in a broad sense) troops - & in that one, quite a few of the 'British' troops were on the other side in the American rebellion, e.g. a certain George Washington.
Thanks for explaining all that to me. I actually did a thesis on compound warfare in the Iberian peninsula, so I am somewhat familiar with the subject.

Moreover, I was actually thinking of the period from the time the wars started with Louis XIV to the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. A 2nd Hundred Years' War? On how money and sea power influenced the war on land and ultimately allowed the British to control whole continents. etc,.

I'll shut up now.
Padfoot is offline  
Old October 5th, 2012   #32
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,222
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Thanks for explaining all that to me. I actually did a thesis on compound warfare in the Iberian peninsula, so I am somewhat familiar with the subject.

Moreover, I was actually thinking of the period from the time the wars started with Louis XIV to the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. A 2nd Hundred Years' War? On how money and sea power influenced the war on land and ultimately allowed the British to control whole continents. etc,.

I'll shut up now.
WOW, thats just all so interesting...........
aussienscale is online now  
Old October 5th, 2012   #33
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,599
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Thanks for explaining all that to me. I actually did a thesis on compound warfare in the Iberian peninsula, so I am somewhat familiar with the subject.

Moreover, I was actually thinking of the period from the time the wars started with Louis XIV to the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. A 2nd Hundred Years' War? On how money and sea power influenced the war on land and ultimately allowed the British to control whole continents. etc,.

I'll shut up now.
Then why suggest that we beat the French there, when you must be aware that an alliance (albeit one in which we were the most important member, if not the one who contributed the most troops) beat the French there, & at the same time France was fighting larger campaigns elsewhere, & therefore our alliance & our main effort on land didn't win a war, but a campaign in what was, for France, mostly a secondary theatre?

In that century, as you're very well aware, our strategy was to make alliances to keep no one power becoming dominant on the European mainland, & that usually meant allying with other states to keep the French down.

Meanwhile, we were making the money that enabled us in the Napoleonic Wars to support allies with loadsa dosh.

Look at the economic history. We went from about the same level of production per head as France but with only a third of the population when Louis XIV was born, to 40% of the population with over 50% of the GDP by the time he died, to two-thirds of the population (not counting colonies) & a bigger GDP - with a much higher disposable proportion, due to much higher income per head - at the end of the Napoleonic wars. We couldn't wield the money weapon when Louis XIVth came to power: he had more tax income than we did, & used hard cash to persuade us to change sides in one war. We could, in spades, by the end of the 18th century, because our economy grew faster, & with it, our scope to tax. Times changed, & kept changing.
swerve is offline  
Old October 6th, 2012   #34
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,027
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Tripe how?
Its tripe because while you were doing your thesis on "compound" warfare you obviously read too much about Hannibal and his elephants and Captain Ahab and his white whale.

This is not play school. The reason why most of us contribute here is to join a mature and considered discussion on current military strategy, equipment and news with some relevant historical context.

The premise of the US taking on the rest of the world in a fictional ocean does not meet that criteria.
ASSAIL is offline  
Old October 6th, 2012   #35
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Everyone keeps pointing to china's carrier killers as the secret weapon that makes all surface ships dead. Its like we suddenly lose the last 50 years of radar and anti missile tech.

The US is kinda built to stop missiles....kinda why we have all of those VLS tubes and SM-3 and such. Along with the Ticonderoga class and the burkes and the Aegis system.

When the block III burkes come out they will be even more deadly trhean either ship before. We have been practicing and refining the technology to take out balistic missiles for decades.

We got this.

Our problem with china is massive amounts of mines, lack of range in our strike aircraft, and in my opinion our over reliance on some technology.

Between the US, Japan, RoK, and the other states in the region were in a pretty good position unless someone REALLY screws up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
Rand did a study a decade ago about a potential war against China ... China lost.

However a more recent study produced a different result.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

Things are going to get even more difficult for the west in another decade or so as the Chinese continue to expand their military capability.

The big threat to the USN would be chinese missiles ... thousands of them.

China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-Killers (Corrected) | Danger Room | Wired.com

The USNs best chance would probably be its submarine fleet rather than airpower. This could be enough to deny Chinese amphibious forces access to Taiwan.

As for establishing a beachhead in South Korea ... that would be a lot more difficult. In fact if the Chinese were to overrun Korea I don't think recapturing using military force would be an option.
Belesari is offline  
Old October 6th, 2012   #36
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belesari View Post
Everyone keeps pointing to china's carrier killers as the secret weapon that makes all surface ships dead. Its like we suddenly lose the last 50 years of radar and anti missile tech.

The US is kinda built to stop missiles....kinda why we have all of those VLS tubes and SM-3 and such. Along with the Ticonderoga class and the burkes and the Aegis system.

When the block III burkes come out they will be even more deadly trhean either ship before. We have been practicing and refining the technology to take out balistic missiles for decades.

We got this.

Our problem with china is massive amounts of mines, lack of range in our strike aircraft, and in my opinion our over reliance on some technology.

Between the US, Japan, RoK, and the other states in the region were in a pretty good position unless someone REALLY screws up.
Whilst the Chinese are probably thinking will these people ever be able to pay us back all that money we have lent them.

The China threat thing reminds we of studies on how the USN tried to present the UK as a threat in the 1920s to justify funding.

The greatest threat to US power is excessive defence spending crippling the economy. Its not as if it does not have powerful allies.
1805 is offline  
Old October 7th, 2012   #37
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Whilst the Chinese are probably thinking will these people ever be able to pay us back all that money we have lent them.

The China threat thing reminds we of studies on how the USN tried to present the UK as a threat in the 1920s to justify funding.

The greatest threat to US power is excessive defence spending crippling the economy. Its not as if it does not have powerful allies.
Lets agree to disagree because that would simply turn into a political disagreement upon a topic its not really a part of.
Belesari is offline  
Old October 29th, 2012   #38
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Whilst the Chinese are probably thinking will these people ever be able to pay us back all that money we have lent them.

The China threat thing reminds we of studies on how the USN tried to present the UK as a threat in the 1920s to justify funding.

The greatest threat to US power is excessive defence spending crippling the economy. Its not as if it does not have powerful allies.

China is surrounded by many nations that are opposed to any move on China's part to violate their economic zones (200-mile). China is a nation that does not possess much open, unfettered access to the sea. This is a reality that they must recognize, acknowledge and accept. Their own coastal economic zone intersects with those of Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and tiny but wealthy Brunei and Singapore. Just east of China in the Pacific is Guam, and the vast expanse U.S. Pacific Territories, as well as the Federated States of Micronesia.

In the sense of being "landlocked", China is truly "sealocked". It has, really, only a 200-mile coastal zone with little or no open access to the Pacific, because of the complexity of it's proximity to other nations and the adjacent sectors of the Pacific. This is what geology has bequeathed it.

Unlike the USA, Canada (both with unfettered oceanic seaboards on both sides; Pacific AND Atlantic), and other nations like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, India, Australia, South Africa, other African nations, United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland and even Mexico and Peru, China must observe the realities of it's relationship to the ocean. It is in fact, making many mistakes right now by building up a large, potent navy. What for?

One of the obvious, to the whole world, problems China may start is the situation in the Spratly Islands off the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. These waters are not at all part of China's economic zone or near it's coastal waters, but wholly shared by the four nations mentioned above. To attempt to "flex" it's might in naval terms there would be a gross violation of the sovereign maritime economic zones of those nations - nothing short of an act of naked aggression in full disregard of those nations and their regional integrity. It would be belligerent aggression intent on illegal annexation of the physical territory/maritime economic zone of other nations.

The Paracel Islands that are equally shared by Vietnam and China (by virtue of Hainan) are another "hotspot" where China may simply imagine that it belongs to China alone. But this would be incorrect; it is equally in proximity to Vietnam as it is to Hainan Island. Therefore, Vietnam has equal jurisdiction of the Islands, and therefore the "ownership" of those islands should be bisected equally between China and Vietnam. It is obviously an simple matter; but China may turn it into a complicated one.

China's behavior is beginning to indicate trouble ahead; observe it's displeasure regarding it's restricted lanes connecting it to the Pacific high seas through Taiwan and Japan's territorial maritime zones. This is an irritant to China. It's shipping has to pass through the two nation's maritime zones, before China's shipping can reach it's own Pacific maritime zone. This is something China must simply recognize and acknowledge. They are nearly on the verge of announcing that it has the right to change these physical facts by ignoring it and taking control of it by might (naval might). To some degree, China also must respect the economic maritime zone of Korea by virtue of Korea's side of the Yellow Sea, which is really a gargantuan bay shared equally by Korea and China.

The so-named "East China Sea", is, like the "Sea of Japan", poorly termed. Just as the "Sea of Japan" should really be called the Korea-Japan Sea, the "East China Sea" is really something like the "Taichija Sea" (Taiwan-China-Japan Sea). Or perhaps it should not be called anything at all; for it is a sector of the Pacific that is shared by the coastlines of all three nations, and in fact, four, by virtue of Cheju-do island, Korea. This means that due to the physical reality of Cheju-do, a small sector of the "East China Sea" is actually Korea's economic maritime zone.

The "East China Sea" is very interesting. It is not the high seas; it is enclosed by and sectioned off from the Pacific high seas by Japan's Ryuku Island chain, and made into a small sea by the landmass of Taiwan. Taiwan, therefore, turns it into a "sea" that is "apart" from the Pacific Ocean.

All four nations equally share this sea.

There should really be no naval program there by any of the nations involved. They should really only be patrolling inside of their own 200-mile maritime economic zones. To practice any sort of naval maneuvers here is nothing short of idiotic. Four powerful modern nations each with vibrant economies to boast in their own rights all steaming around with navies in such confined, restricted waters where their economic maritime zones all converge almost immediately, simultaneously? China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan should convene and come to logical, rational, obvious conclusion and agreement over this sector of their shared interest in terms of shipping access and cooperative harmony. They need to; they have to.

China's naval buildup? It's posturing? It is rather a shame that China is building up such a navy. What for? It's truly ridiculous. What nation, or even nations, (who?) is going to threaten China, in any form or way whatsoever? Why, the answer is, nobody! China is simply being a nuisance right now in world affairs by wasting billions of it's financial resources by building a "built-up" navy. Why does China need an aircraft carrier?! It's ridiculous, to put it mildly. The entire Pacific approach to it's national shores and coastline would be blanketed by it's land-based missiles and within range of it's modern aircraft. Nothing could nor will ever threaten it's coastline, economic maritime zone or it's territorial integrity. It's landmass not vast; it is immense. It is the world's fourth largest country. Bear in mind that this is in relation to Russia, Canada and the United States. It is almost exactly the same size as the United States - bear in mind that this includes Alaska! And it actually has MORE land than the United States, because a vast area of the United States is actually not land but water - in the form of the Great Lakes. China has the third AND sixth largest rivers of the world wholly inside it's borders. Three more of the world's 12 largest rivers are partly or mostly in China! One in every five human beings in the planet is Chinese!! And that is not including all of the Chinese persons all across the globe in the millions residing in other countries! China has a BILLION people, and then, ANOTHER THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR MILLION people. That is over ONE BILLION people MORE than the ENTIRE population of the United States!!

Why does China, of all countries, need to build up a NAVY of all things. It would well serve itself by building more competitive trade shipping, rather than wasting it's time, resources and energy on military naval machinery and technology. If it's national security it's worried about, it may as well simply augment it's air force into what would essentially be the largest and most potent in the world - yes, even beyond that of the USAF. (What a silly thought - CHINA?! , worried about IT'S national security? As if any nation or nation(s) could ever pose the most remote threat to China!!

Last edited by OPSSG; January 29th, 2013 at 11:46 PM.
History1 is offline  
Old January 27th, 2013   #39
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
Threads:
reply to a few comments

yea...it is the most powerful but not just because of its size or its technology. its because it is the United States of America's Navy. If another Navy even wanted to have a small chance at defeating our navy it would take all their military resources. which means their homeland would notbe defended very well. so while they are out fighting our navy we would be attacking their homeland. ....we are the only true blue water navy, we have a thousand bases all over the world, and if we felt like we needed to we have enough nukes all over the planet ready to go and giving us the capability to nuke and destroy every capital city on the planet within 30 mins.........so yea, you cant just look at the navy, you have to look at the driving force behind it .......lol we are bullys
cwindom is offline  
Old January 27th, 2013   #40
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
Threads:
troops = babysitters

Someone could have already said this but I didn't read the other responses but.....the military sends in troops for the same reason parents hire baby sitters. You can tell the no as much as you want to but when they are not being watched they go back to what they were doing...we send troops to let them know we are not playing around. By sending troops there we are saving lives. its kinda out way of holding back..we are very capable of winning a war without ever sending one troop on but that would involve the death of millions of people because the only way it would work is if the enemy and their homeland were wiped off the face of the earth

and for the record...I don't think you understand exactially what the MOAB is or how powerful it is..10 of them would not stop anything

Quote:
Originally Posted by Padfoot View Post
Thanks for explaining all that to me. I actually did a thesis on compound warfare in the Iberian peninsula, so I am somewhat familiar with the subject.

Moreover, I was actually thinking of the period from the time the wars started with Louis XIV to the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. A 2nd Hundred Years' War? On how money and sea power influenced the war on land and ultimately allowed the British to control whole continents. etc,.

I'll shut up now.
cwindom is offline  
Old January 27th, 2013   #41
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
cdwindom

welcome to the forums, I suggest that you introduce yourself in the new members area before posting again

I'd also suggest that you read the forum rules on posting expectations before proceeding any further in this post

finally, re-read your prev entries and I suggest make some editorial changes

there is an obligation in here for people to not mix fact with fiction, or confuse aspirations with the ground test realities of factual data

there are a number of things claimed in your last post which are incoorrect, so unless you can substantiate them they are at risk of being edited by Mods or challenged by other members, esp those who are blue tagged Defence Professionals or some of the green tagged Senior Members

enjoy your time, but take note of the above - and remember that the subject matter/thread title is the focus

none of the posts in this forum are vehicles for nationalistic chest thumping, which can be the accidental tourist when people don't stay in the subject lane and let passion dictate posting
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old January 29th, 2013   #42
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 396
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by History1 View Post
Why does China, of all countries, need to build up a NAVY of all things. It would well serve itself by building more competitive trade shipping, rather than wasting it's time, resources and energy on military naval machinery and technology. If it's national security it's worried about, it may as well simply augment it's air force into what would essentially be the largest and most potent in the world - yes, even beyond that of the USAF. (What a silly thought - CHINA?! , worried about IT'S national security? As if any nation or nation(s) could ever pose the most remote threat to China!!
My opinion: It's a (1) "prestige" thing, and (2) scare the hell out of Taiwan and Japan.

China wants to be a superpower and superpowers are supposed to have aircraft carriers and a strong navy. The Chinese don't like the Japanese so much even if most countries have moved on since WW2. But at the minimum, I think they want to show Japan they that they have a better Navy. Lastly, if ever Taiwan declares independence, they'd have a carrier to protect their landing force, after it basically destroys Taiwan's population centers with their missiles.
fretburner is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2013   #43
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
Rand did a study a decade ago about a potential war against China ... China lost.

However a more recent study produced a different result.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

Things are going to get even more difficult for the west in another decade or so as the Chinese continue to expand their military capability.

The big threat to the USN would be chinese missiles ... thousands of them.

China May Turn Missiles into Carrier-Killers (Corrected) | Danger Room | Wired.com

The USNs best chance would probably be its submarine fleet rather than airpower. This could be enough to deny Chinese amphibious forces access to Taiwan.

As for establishing a beachhead in South Korea ... that would be a lot more difficult. In fact if the Chinese were to overrun Korea I don't think recapturing using military force would be an option.
If you read the RAND study, China does not "beat" the US. What it does is achieve air superiority for a few days by damaging US airbases and taking huge losses to its 2000+ aircraft. F-22's flying from Japanese territory achieve a 27-1 kill ratio, but there aren't enough of them to make much difference relative to Taiwan's 300 fighters. So China can send boats across the straight without it being a turkey shoot by gaining air superiority for a few days.

But an amphibious assault of this scale has never been launched since WWII. There has never been an amphibious assault against a defense of helicopters and missiles, because it would be a complete rout. RAND concludes the Chinese would have no chance.

Fretburner, China is only 100 miles from Taiwan. They don't need a carrier to protect a landing force. Carrier air wings have less than 50 planes anyway, which is why the presence of US carriers in a Taiwan straight war makes little difference.

China must build up a navy because it is essentially landlocked, and it is a huge national security risk to have foreign naval powers able to shut off its trade. Examples: The British blockaded US ports in 1812 to prevent trade with the French, with whom they were at war. US interference with Japanese trade preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Berkeley is offline  
Old February 7th, 2013   #44
Just Hatched
Private
SHARKBITEATTACK's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Threads:
The United States has 10 of the most advanced nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers. The rest of the world operates a total of 11, many of which are hand me downs from other nations. nuff said

You need to read the Forum Rules before posting anymore.; Your 2 attempts to date have not been good examples of the standards expected in here.

Last edited by gf0012-aust; February 7th, 2013 at 08:30 PM.
SHARKBITEATTACK is offline  
Old February 8th, 2013   #45
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 54
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by History1 View Post
China is surrounded by many nations that are opposed to any move on China's part to violate their economic zones (200-mile)...
Well, I think I can offer a partial explanation to your questions. Of course there are probably many other reasons for China to keep building a navy at the staggering place that it is now doing and most of those reasons will probably never be know.

The reason I'm going to talk about is image. By image I mean the image of the world superpowers and the historical impact on China. Chinas history is complicated and rather complex. Suffice to say that when in Europe we were burning witches, they were way ahead of us in what can be called an Asian Renaissance comparable to the European one a couple of hundred years latter. China has always been a major power in the history of the world ever since the warring states (700ish BC). In the XIX century however, China got a big wake up call by western superpowers and what always humbled China were the big European and Japanese navies who could choke trade and bring thousands of troops to bear, under the cover of their big guns. So, the image that China has of a big respectable superpower is a big navy able to project Chinese force anywhere on the Globe.

It's not just navally wise they are building themselves based on their image of what a true superpower should be. There are other aspects to it one being the mass centralization of power production and the available power sources they have and they are developing. This is the way China saw the big western powers who dominated her and it is the image that it is trying to replicate. China wants to be a big boy.

This insight into Chinese thinking is shared with lots of people who work in the environmental area who have to struggle to change Chinese mentality in that, the way they are pursuing (they're building 10 new coal plants a year and once their nuclear programme is up and running, 5 nuclear power plants a year), is not a viable option (with some positive results I might add), however, such views are not easy to change since again, the big western powers are strong because they did things this way. Climate changes and the desertification of most of China are quickly changing their minds.

This insight into what are the reasons for China to build a great blue water navy is my personal opinion as well informed as it can be. It's kind of the only logical conclusion one can reach when you learn their "we must mimic western powers to be great" mentality and cross check it with their history. Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, America, Japan... All aggressors in Chinese history, all had in common a big modern blue water navy.

Last edited by OPSSG; February 8th, 2013 at 11:40 PM.
mAIOR is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.