For gawds sake!
The thread is stupid enough without this tripe
US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?
- Thread starter Berkeley
- Start date
- Status
The thread is stupid enough without this tripe
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.
Bit of a silly discussion but I will play.
What if these fictitious ocean battles weren't fought in open waters?
Envisage a situation such a conflict with China a few decades from now. The Chinese have quickly overwhelmed Taiwan and Korea. The Indians, Russians and other nations in the region all want to remain neutral and have refused to allow the US access to land bases.
Effectively this means the USN will now have to deal with the double threat of the Chinese navy and airforce.
The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
What if these fictitious ocean battles weren't fought in open waters?
Envisage a situation such a conflict with China a few decades from now. The Chinese have quickly overwhelmed Taiwan and Korea. The Indians, Russians and other nations in the region all want to remain neutral and have refused to allow the US access to land bases.
Effectively this means the USN will now have to deal with the double threat of the Chinese navy and airforce.
The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
fretburner
Banned Member
Assuming no nukes? I believe the USN can do so. Those Chinese missiles are going to be nasty though, once the USN lands -- maybe in Korea? I'm not so sure if the Red Storm Rising scenario is feasible with all those Burkes, Ticos and F-35s supported by E-2Ds. And, I believe the USN will be able to strike first with all those tomahawks from SSGNs. I also presume that when you say USN, you include the Marines.
In this particular scenario ... yes.You think that the limitations of the USN are the biggest factor in a land war against the Chinese on their home turf?
Before troops could be inserted control of the air and sea would be essential
In the case of Taiwan it may be enough just to create an exclusion zone.
Korea would be trickier in that they would need to conduct a massive D-Day type of amphibious operation ... but over a much greater distance.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Just one point, any initial battles will be against in theatre forces only.
In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.
In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.
Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.
Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.
In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.
In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.
Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.
Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.
exported_kiwi
New Member
But with the recent announcement that the USN will station 60% of its fleet in Asia, would this not negate any tactical advantage China may have?
Although it would take time to regenerate, the USN reserve fleet is fairly formidable, in itself and would, no doubt, sortie prior to any hostilities.
On the negative side, would not China pre-emptively strike at ROK, Japanese and Taiwanese airfields? Admittedly, not all these nations aircraft would be destroyed but a significant amount of them would, I imagine.
Best scenario, before China "winds up" the ICBM fleet would be to neutralise them first and the SSBNs, Next phase, C4I, air defenses and POL as well as denying PLA-N replenishment.
Overly simplistic but it's hardly rocket science.
The goal wouldn't be actual occupation of the Chinese mainland proper, but to neutralize their ability to strike outside their own littoral areas thus securing allies in the region (strictly naval), no?
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.
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.
Tripe how?
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...........Thanks for explaining all that to me.
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?Thanks for explaining all that to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lets agree to disagree because that would simply turn into a political disagreement upon a topic its not really a part of.
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 a moderator:
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
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
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
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
Thanks for explaining all that to me.
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.
- Status