US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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
 

fretburner

Banned Member
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.
 

Berkeley

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #43
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.
 

SHARKBITEATTACK

Banned Member
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 a moderator:

mAIOR

New Member
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 a moderator:

Whitehead

New Member
A conflict between China and the United States would end badly for both sides. Both economies thrive off of each other and going to war with each other would cause some serious problems in different forms for both. Pitting the USN against all of China is kind of ridiculous. You can expect the USAF to bring in bombers to help support any sort of engagement between the two forces.

Either way, a conflict between the two would do more harm to each other than either would gain. Just my two cents thrown in here.
 

Belesari

New Member
A conflict between China and the United States would end badly for both sides. Both economies thrive off of each other and going to war with each other would cause some serious problems in different forms for both. Pitting the USN against all of China is kind of ridiculous. You can expect the USAF to bring in bombers to help support any sort of engagement between the two forces.

Either way, a conflict between the two would do more harm to each other than either would gain. Just my two cents thrown in here.
That is a Logical answer but politics and world events are not shaped by logic so much as by emotion and reasoning. You can reason with yourself on how a war with America would never get out of hand and it wont help the tens of thousands if not millions who die.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Well this is almost a VS topic, but lets set the record here.
Everyone is telling about the French and the UK in the ancient times but what about the Dutch who owned the seas for nearly 200 years (Next to the UK)
Or the Spanish before that? So if history is going to be a part of this then lets make sure that it is a correct one, as back then the Spanish where by far the biggest armada in the world, and it took a painful alliance between Rival Netherlands and Great Britain to destroy it, which eventually back stabbed the UK as it enabled the French to become a significant naval power (Spain was keeping them in check)
So some historians argue that the defeat of the Spanish armada was the start of the defeat in the north US territories.

There was no way that the British could fight France on the land and the Dutch on the seas and be succesfull as history books concluded.

That being said, as for China today for most it sounds ridiculous that China is building up a massive fleet and army, but on the other hand the US is changing its policy to "contain" China, while China on the other hands wants to stop US influence in the region so that it does not come any closer then it already is.
So from a Chinese POV its going to take ALOT to achieve this.
And the one and only way for the Chinese without starting a war is to deter its neighbors and indirect the US and by being a pain in the *peep* at the UN.

As for the USN being the most powerful navy and biggest i have to agree in paper you guys are in size and overall capabilities the best.
But taking on the whole world?
During the Cold war there where various models to simulate a war between east and west, and it was recognized that on both sides that the USSR and Its allies (Warschauw pact) would outnumber the west 3 to 1 and that on land and sea the west was not as effective as they would think they are given the technological differences between west and east, not to mention that the USSR outnumbered the land forces by nearly 10 to 1.

My point here is that even today while the USN is the biggest top dog around it has significant problems in a attempt to take on the rest.
What most people seem to forget that most allies of the US itself have better frigates and destroyers individually.
Stealth, Automation, Battlefield awareness and high precision LR and SR weapons are not just a USN feature. Today most respectable nations field these techs in their small but very capable navies and some have better frigates and individual ships then any USN surface asset around.

The bulk of the US power comes from 5 aspects:

1: A superior Air force
2: Its carrier groups
3: Its Nuclear Subs / ICBMS
4: Its economy and geographical access to regions
5: Its Intel gathering and exp to field Intel into strategy.

These are the 5 primary assets that the US has, and for this i did not list the regular army as they are GREAT on paper bu in the RL world it can be decimated rather quickly as "the rest of the world" is just WAY above anything the army can accomplish.
(Sure people will argue about it if i am right or not but bare with me)

I listed 5 things as general idea to lay out a battle between US and the rest.
I venture to say that in a war the USN and the US Military machine is by far the biggest beast around, but anyone even thinking that the US would be able to overcome "the rest" regardless if this is on Land, Sea or Air is suffering a mental meltdown.
And i personally say this the amount of Havoc that the US is able to create world wide in a all out war would make every war in history look like a joke.
But it will be brought to a stop and eventually being beaten at the battle field, and eventually in its own backyard and mainland.

Keep in mind one of the most important assets the US has is its global reach and its bases world wide.
If those are being taken out it would severely weaken the US and would force it into retreat. Where the rest of the world can literally starve the US into submission.

And i do not want to hurt anyones feelings or disrespect anyone here, but if the US would attempt such a thing, it would make the same principal mistake as Japan, when they attacked the US, as Hitler when he attacked USSR while fighting the rest.

It would awaken a world wide beast.
Besides that the world would a far lesser place without the US, but on the flip side the US would be nothing without the rest of the world.
Conclusion we need each other to much, now if you want to create a "world ending event" then a war between US and the rest would be a pretty darn good point to start lol.
Cheers
 

Whitehead

New Member
As long as nuclear weapons are around and able to be deployed without being destroyed while in transit to there target no large scale war will last long enough to see one side win. In a way they keep world peace. Not the best plan, but it works.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thread closed

Some of the more senior members should know much better than to follow some of the lines of debate undertaken

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top