View Full Version : China and Russia Defeat the US says...
Rand and perhaps others. It's a sobering report. The US loses to Russia or China at sea?! They kinda lost me there, but being honest about our weaknesses is important too. Me, I tend to believe wars are won or lost by the US by the population being fully behind it or at the mall. The US is a war machine like no other if the population decides it's important and backs it. I'm not so sure we are truly a dominant power as it stands now, where more people know what movie star got knocked up vs find Afghanistan in a map. On their home turf, I think Russia or China, historically repelling invaders, would win a ground war, but we'd never invade either.
U.S. forces are defeated by Russia and China across most scenarios in World War III simulations, analysts warn
Nonprofit global policy think tank RAND performs simulated war scenarios to test how the US would fare against other leading military superpowers
The simulations cover battle on land, at sea, in the air, space and cyberspace
Analysts warned last week that the US loses to Russia or China in most scenarios
However, they said it would take just $24billion annually to improve outcomes
That's about three percent of the $750billion defense budget proposed for 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6797043/US-defeated-Russia-China-scenarios-World-War-III-simulations-analysts-warn.html?ito=social-facebook&fbclid=IwAR0r_EedQTizAMendoBc-d1QyJo08EgL4r8PcUwJqulcD2bgj0UuDFEWaII
BoringGuy45
03-11-19, 22:47
I tend to doubt it. We're still the most advanced and powerful military on Earth, and we're still engaged in many low intensity conflicts, so it's not like our military is getting out of practice.
For some reason, we're always predicted to lose. ALWAYS. Read any books from the Cold War. They all agreed that the USSR was bigger, stronger, more advanced, and had a better equipped and trained military than we ever could hope for. A war with us would hardly be a contest for them. Then in 1991, right before Desert Storm began, all the analysts said we'd lose 75% of our forces, and it would take many months, if not years, to get Saddam out of Kuwait...if it could be done at all. After all, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, they were battle hardened, and equipped with all the Soviet gear that everyone agreed was better than ours. The numbers for us were so grim, that the Chinese were getting ready to make some pretty aggressive moves at the time, as they figured we'd be too weak after the Gulf War to stop them. Some even predicted that the upcoming defeat, or at best Pyrrhic victory over Iraq, was going to spell the end of the United States as a superpower, and probably either China, Iraq, or Iran would rise up in our place.
The rest is history.
I don't see us going to war with either China or Russia anytime soon. All three nations know it's not in anyone's best interests, and there's nothing at stake at the moment demanding a war. If there is a war, however, I'm confident we'll win. There's too much at stake if we lose, and I don't think anyone wants to see what would happen if we surrendered to China or Russia.
Interesting article. Better to not be complacent in these matters.
The biggest takeaway is the cyber warfare and infrastructure weaknesses. We do need to fortify these areas. And stop letting China build our shit!
A metric that gets overlooked all too often is grit. We got that in spades.
Our general population is better armed for traditional ground warfare than Chinas and Russia’s military forces combined.
Everyone’s tech is vunerable in ways.
Only way to win against the USA is total annihilation. Period.
A bunch of goat-fvckers in AStan with ‘80’s tech and caves are tough to defeat with the best tech and tactics in the world- you don’t want to Fvck with the country that is better armed than most militaries and has access to sophisticated workshops in many garages, let alone real shops, labs, etc- capable of being serious adversaries when attacked.
You gotta take us all out with a nuke, destroy the power grid and let us kill each other off or cause some other mass event.
A conventional fight with the USA is unwinnable.
We’ve got greater access to small arms, Chemicals and materials to make all sorts of shit and dudes with experience than the next 5 countries do combined.
If China and Russia believed the findings in these articles, it would be game on already. They know it’s a loosing prospect and want no part of it currently.
We should fortify and invest in our military, though. Streamline and get more efficient. Otherwise, soon enough we may find ourselves in a bad spot.
I always like how the solutions in all these scenarios always require more monies to be spent.
It’s like a shamwow commercial. For 9.95$ more we’ll double your order of military superiority.
Idk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
03-12-19, 07:12
First of all, the Russians are the good guys.
Second of all, for them to “win” them and China need only repel an invasion.
Lol invasion
Why invade a country when you can buy it?
The Chicoms are a joke militarily and I still don’t know why we need another Cold War with Russia. At this point, they are more economically free than we are.
I find it curious that all these boomers who wave hammers and sickles want us to fight Russia.
Averageman
03-12-19, 09:20
I thought bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. was a good idea and a part of that reason is that it just makes sense tactically.
You can't rebuild an infrastructure and a Military and ask the Chi Com's and Russians to please help, it just doesn't make sense. That we may be behind militarily, is a possibility, you can't destroy Nations and then go back and rebuild them again without diverting money away from home and too your former enemies.
sundance435
03-12-19, 10:09
The odds of "World War III" in a conventional sense are long, at best. I do believe we have a lot of ground to make up in the cybersecurity/networking domain, which is how China and Russia have leveraged their defense spending to nullify some/many of our hardware advantages. As for the level of "fire" our forces might take and being unprepared for it, if it gets to that level, then what are the chances it stays a conventional conflict?
Not terribly concerned about a major naval conflict with Russia. China is a different matter, and we can easily take China on the sea. I really don't see a protracted conflict with either of them.
Doc Safari
03-12-19, 10:46
Like many other things, we won't know until it happens. Pray it never happens.
Averageman
03-12-19, 10:53
The odds of "World War III" in a conventional sense are long, at best. I do believe we have a lot of ground to make up in the cybersecurity/networking domain, which is how China and Russia have leveraged their defense spending to nullify some/many of our hardware advantages. As for the level of "fire" our forces might take and being unprepared for it, if it gets to that level, then what are the chances it stays a conventional conflict?
I've heard that one of the reasons we are behind in cyber security is that the best and the brightest aren't comfortable with the Intel people and the Intel people aren't comfortable with all of the tattoo's and piercings the best and the brightest have.
Some folks need to understand the level at which we're being ripped off and get off of their high horses and come back to reality. I think if we issued some of these people a cyber security letter of marque and turned them loose on the Chinese those Muppets would likely know what hit them.
There are a lot of folks out there who would love the chance to sit at the helm of a digital Pirate Ship that was funded by Uncle Sam and commit all sorts of mayhem against our enemies.
I've heard that one of the reasons we are behind in cyber security is that the best and the brightest aren't comfortable with the Intel people and the Intel people aren't comfortable with all of the tattoo's and piercings the best and the brightest have.
Some folks need to understand the level at which we're being ripped off and get off of their high horses and come back to reality. I think if we issued some of these people a cyber security letter of marque and turned them loose on the Chinese those Muppets would likely know what hit them.
There are a lot of folks out there who would love the chance to sit at the helm of a digital Pirate Ship that was funded by Uncle Sam and commit all sorts of mayhem against our enemies.
I tend to think that happens now perhaps more than we know/appreciate. But, commie countries have the ability to harden up their cyber systems far easier than we do for obvious reasons.
I wouldn't be so confident about the sea. Chicom nor Russia can match up ship to ship. What they can do though is take out billion dollar ships with million dollar missiles.
I tend to think that happens now perhaps more than we know/appreciate. But, commie countries have the ability to harden up their cyber systems far easier than we do for obvious reasons.
Is our fleet even operating anywhere near an effective level?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
03-12-19, 11:49
I wouldn't be so confident about the sea. Chicom nor Russia can match up ship to ship. What they can do though is take out billion dollar ships with million dollar missiles.
Neither have the subs, carriers, or naval aircraft we have though.
vicious_cb
03-12-19, 12:46
More dailymail fake news. Sorry WWIII isn't going to happen. Everyones economy is too intertwined and alliances everyone has would make WWI look simple. Starting a war is basically mutally assured destruction for the world economy.
Is our fleet even operating anywhere near an effective level?
Above my pay grade to answer that one.
But the real tests are:
1. Is China’s and Russia’s military up to date on their diversity training?
2. Have China and Russia readily accepted and integrated LBGQTXYZ persons into their combat forces?
Russia’s subs are definitely as good as ours, if not better, FYI. Their navy is a real threat and while the Chinese subs may not be as good, we have some weaknesses that would be very easily exploited. Also, we definitely do not have a civilian populace that is better armed than either army. IDGAF how many ARs and Vickers classes you have, PKMs are PKMs. Plus, number of guns doesn’t mean shit when you don’t have enough people and/or ammo for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doc Safari
03-12-19, 16:21
I wonder what strategy they would take in defeating us?
Also, I hope it wouldn’t take long to catch up, but right now our Law of Armed Conflict does not support a successful ending to a war with either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coal Dragger
03-12-19, 17:22
Neither have the subs, carriers, or naval aircraft we have though.
Well aircraft carriers are obsolete and stupid, just huge targets for anti-ship missiles that cost relatively little. They’re also extremely noisy and easy to detect by submarines. The Chinese don’t need a deep water Navy or the best submarines to keep US carrier groups so far out that the airplanes they carry are not combat effective. Unfortunately US Navy brass consist of lot’s of aviators that refuse to accept this reality. So we spend more money on antiques. Carriers are really good for flexing on 3rd world opponents with no anti-ship capability, I have doubts they’re relevant for projecting power ashore against a peer or near peer opponent.
I wonder what strategy they would take in defeating us?
Turn off the wi fi!
Also, I hope it wouldn’t take long to catch up, but right now our Law of Armed Conflict does not support a successful ending to a war with either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"
Is our fleet even operating anywhere near an effective level?
I don't think so, look at the issues that were brought to light as a result of the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents.
Plus, they are talking about retiring the USS Truman (CVN-75) early instead of refueling her reactor in 2024. This would essentially cut 20 years of the Truman's service life.
The Navy has to worry about keeping two shipyards in particular in business: Newport News, which is reported to be the only shipyard in the world capable of building a nuclear powered carrier, and Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, which is the largest builder of nuclear subs.
In other news, the Pentagon is wanting to order a bunch of F-15x's, the Air Force may not be so anxious to get the new 'old' fighters: https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f15x-purchase-f35
Never invade China. Never invade Russia. If they were wise they would never even attempt to invade us. Invading is one thing; hitting targets like airfields (with conventional munitions) cannot be ruled out and should therefore be planned for accordingly. This goes both ways of course.
Outside of those parameters it would be a [hopefully] limited encounter, however bloody it may be, that would take place near "flash points". Unfortunately for us, those very "flash points" (SE Europe, the ME, SW Asia, the Far East) are all much closer to potential enemies than they are to us. Of course then the need in those situations to hit airfields in China/Russia proper becomes more likely, more pronounced. We are still thousands of miles away.
The inherent danger of the above strategy is that China/Russia, pissed that they've been hit on home soil, would be determined to hit us here some how, some way. THAT would have the potential of ramping the conflict up significantly.
Basically we would see such a conflict in a more tactical sense, while they would see it in a more strategic way.
Business_Casual
03-12-19, 19:38
Admiral: We need a report.
Rand: Mo’ money?
Admiral: My man!
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-12-19, 19:39
Outside of a coordinated attack in multiple theaters, the problem with 'defeating' the US is that since the US has 3-4 times the military power that any enemy faces at one time, you then get to do it again- and maybe a couple more times- all while you are an international pariah, whose neighbors are all more then happy to see you taken down a notch or two. And you are fighting a war in your economic zone..
In fact, I'd bet that you'd be able to get a sucker punch in on the US and the US would take time and rally economic and political pressure, while they wind up the wheelhouse hit.
People don't realize how inherently unstable China is. It looks like a fine watch that just keeps ticking, but it has a bunch of springs that will screw everything up if knocked out of alignment.
Russia's play will always be a softer play with the destabilizing the Baltic countries internally before they go in to 'safeguard' their Russian minorities. Russia is just waiting for the West to screw itself financially with debt and socialism, and then pick up scraps- kind of an odd turn-about on the 90s.
I don't think so, look at the issues that were brought to light as a result of the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents.
Plus, they are talking about retiring the USS Truman (CVN-75) early instead of refueling her reactor in 2024. This would essentially cut 20 years of the Truman's service life.
The Navy has to worry about keeping two shipyards in particular in business: Newport News, which is reported to be the only shipyard in the world capable of building a nuclear powered carrier, and Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, which is the largest builder of nuclear subs.
Good points. I’m actually doing a small report on all of this stuff right now and the industrial base is a huge concern. Same with the training issue, apparently an entire command was just setup to validate ship crews before they go on deployment (or something to that effect) because of those events.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-13-19, 03:18
Good points. I’m actually doing a small report on all of this stuff right now and the industrial base is a huge concern. Same with the training issue, apparently an entire command was just setup to validate ship crews before they go on deployment (or something to that effect) because of those events.
I joined the Army in 1981, that testing was a regular part of our daily lives along with annual MOS testing, Individual skills testing and the continual threat of some folks from Corps walking in unannounced and auditing training, equipment status and property accountability. You were actually required to have your individual skills booklet in your pocket at all times to track your training.
I guess a lot of things have went to the wayside in order to make the Military a little easier for people to serve in, but it's kind of hard to justify that to a corpse isn't it?
Moose-Knuckle
03-13-19, 03:24
People don't realize how inherently unstable China is. It looks like a fine watch that just keeps ticking, but it has a bunch of springs that will screw everything up if knocked out of alignment.
Their Achilles heel is the Three Gorges Dam. It's an enormous stretch of fresh water that backs up almost 400 miles on the Yangtze river. It covers and area of roughly 400 square miles and is home to the world's largest installed capacity power station. The dam is about a mile and half long and 600ft high, if breached it would be catastrophic and there are more than a few things that can punch holes in it.
sundance435
03-13-19, 08:42
Russia’s subs are definitely as good as ours, if not better, FYI. Their navy is a real threat and while the Chinese subs may not be as good, we have some weaknesses that would be very easily exploited. Also, we definitely do not have a civilian populace that is better armed than either army. IDGAF how many ARs and Vickers classes you have, PKMs are PKMs. Plus, number of guns doesn’t mean shit when you don’t have enough people and/or ammo for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All 3 +/- that were laid down after the breakup? No. None of their subs are close to the Seawolf or Virginia class. The refit Akulas can probably hold their own against, maybe even slightly outclass, the most up-to-date LA class. The backbone of their attack sub fleet are various 70s and 80s vintage subs, with maybe 2-3 "modernized" Akulas and the 1 Yasen that's active. We have, at the moment (only increasing), double what the Russkies can field for attack subs in Virginia class boats alone.
Well aircraft carriers are obsolete and stupid, just huge targets for anti-ship missiles that cost relatively little. They’re also extremely noisy and easy to detect by submarines. The Chinese don’t need a deep water Navy or the best submarines to keep US carrier groups so far out that the airplanes they carry are not combat effective. Unfortunately US Navy brass consist of lot’s of aviators that refuse to accept this reality. So we spend more money on antiques. Carriers are really good for flexing on 3rd world opponents with no anti-ship capability, I have doubts they’re relevant for projecting power ashore against a peer or near peer opponent.
That's overstated. Carriers are needed for force projection anywhere, since no one's come up with anything better. Are they vulnerable to China's myriad A2/AD? Yes. That's why they roll with a bunch of ships whose main job is to protect the carrier. I will say the mindset of the Navy and the American public is that we can't lose a single carrier and that to do so would change the political calculus in any conflict, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume they're complete sitting ducks (yes, I know you can find numerous articles stating they are). I also think the Navy needs to be seriously investing in more countermeasures to protect carriers, if they're serious about the possibility of confronting China/Russia. If the FFG(X) comes to fruition with anything less than 12-16 VLS capacity (preferably scalable upwards), then we'll know they aren't taking it seriously. There's also a design out there that would turn LPDs into floating VLS platforms. That would go a long way to protecting a carrier from A2/AD threats.
I don't think so, look at the issues that were brought to light as a result of the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents.
Plus, they are talking about retiring the USS Truman (CVN-75) early instead of refueling her reactor in 2024. This would essentially cut 20 years of the Truman's service life.
The Navy has to worry about keeping two shipyards in particular in business: Newport News, which is reported to be the only shipyard in the world capable of building a nuclear powered carrier, and Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, which is the largest builder of nuclear subs.
In other news, the Pentagon is wanting to order a bunch of F-15x's, the Air Force may not be so anxious to get the new 'old' fighters: https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f15x-purchase-f35
I think the Truman decommissioning is just Navy posturing ahead of the defense budget debate. They know it's DOA in Congress, so they'll try to use it as leverage for more funding. As for the F15X, I think it makes perfect sense to procure them. Most of the 15Cs are 30+ years old and they ain't low-stress B-52 airframes we're talking about. Even if it were possible to ramp F35 production up to 90+ a year right now (which it's not, according to the AF), it'll be 10 years at least before there are enough to replace the F-15C. The Air Force has to have a Hi-Lo mix at all times - that should be an absolute necessity. Subbing newer F-16s to retire the F-15C makes zero sense, either. An F-15X, as a long-range AA missile truck, still has a role to play in future conflicts, besides being the best Gen 4+ interceptor out there. If they go through with the F-15X purchase in the upcoming budget cycle, it'll be one of the most forward-thinking decisions the AF has made in years. The main resistance is coming from the same quarters that don't want a dedicated prop-CAS force - they want all Gen 5 or nothing.
Admiral: We need a report.
Rand: Mo’ money?
Admiral: My man!
Yeah, Rand is good for that. It's almost a given that will be their conclusion. They ain't wrong about this or the Baltics scenario that came out a few years ago, but you have to keep their fiscal predilections in mind when making any conclusions from their reports.
All 3 +/- that were laid down after the breakup? No. None of their subs are close to the Seawolf or Virginia class. The refit Akulas can probably hold their own against, maybe even slightly outclass, the most up-to-date LA class. The backbone of their attack sub fleet are various 70s and 80s vintage subs, with maybe 2-3 "modernized" Akulas and the 1 Yasen that's active. We have, at the moment (only increasing), double what the Russkies can field for attack subs in Virginia class boats alone.
My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.
My understanding is more in line with what sundance435 said, they have nothing even close to our newest subs and we have substantially more of them.
Adrenaline_6
03-13-19, 11:37
Quieter? Didn't the LA attack class subs look for the "hole" in the background noise to find the Ohio class subs in training exercises? If so, how much quieter do you need to be?
Quieter? Didn't the LA attack class subs look for the "hole" in the background noise to find the Ohio class subs in training exercises? If so, how much quieter do you need to be?
As quiet as required to prevent the other side tech from detecting you. I assume that tech is always improving and a sub can't be too quite.
Chinese military tech is only as good as they can reverse engineer or build off stolen plans.
Our current sub capability is more in-depth than what Jane's or Proceedings will publish.
As for carriers, if we can surround them with a group, they can control the battle. Our problem is we can't build them as fast as we are retiring them.
As quiet as required to prevent the other side tech from detecting you. I assume that tech is always improving and a sub can't be too quite.
Our subs are pretty quiet 😉
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1992-russian-nuclear-attack-submarine-crashed-us-sub-24500
Our subs are pretty quiet ��
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1992-russian-nuclear-attack-submarine-crashed-us-sub-24500
It would appear we didn't detect them either from what I gathered, but was also a while ago so I'd think better tech developed since that time.
sundance435
03-13-19, 13:04
My understanding is that their subs are far quieter than ours and are able to dive significantly deeper. Also, they learned quite a bit from the Cold War and have done a good job preparing to exploit our weaknesses while they cover their own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you thinking of the caterpillar drive? Seriously though, based on generally available/accepted information, including firsthand accounts from submariners, they don't have an attack sub that's even close to the Seawolf or Virginia in terms of quietness. Same has been said for the Ohio-class (just look up a picture of a Russia Delta SSBN and tell me that thing is remotely quiet). Only their newest subs feature pump-jet propulsion technology (no "screw"), which is huge for quietness - they did experiment with it earlier than we did, but never implemented it to any degree until their newest SSBNs. The Sierra-class, of which the Russians have 2 active (first launched in the late 80's, early 90's), do use titanium to some degree in their hull design, so theoretically they can dive deeper than what we know officially about American subs, but it's a poorly-kept secret that our subs are capable of diving much deeper than what's published.
Don't get me wrong, the Russians have come a long way in sub tech, but it's still one of the few areas where we have undisputed primacy. That, plus, as with any Russian military procurement after the mid-80's, none of their weapons are produced to any scale beyond trials, i.e., Su-57, T-14, etc. They love to tout weapons they end up building 10 of.
Neither have the subs, carriers, or naval aircraft we have though.
Subs present our one trump card currently. Even the US Navy recognizes, internally anyway, the the carriers will be targeted first and their survival measured in HOURS for those in theatre. The air assets with them. I agree about the aircraft as a whole.... however, who amongst you are really so naive to think the Chinese will face off against our strengths? Do you think in the land of Sun Tzu that they have not read the friggin book?
Here's the deal: we can project power much better than they can. We're not going to have some sort of set piece battle that would make Montgomery proud. We cannot do a D day style landing of troops on mainland China anymore than they can the US. So what then? Unconventional. And economic warfare. The singular thing, more than anything else, that allowed us to win WWII was our industrial capacity. Who has that advantage now. Many very critical pieces of our civilian infrastructure is manufactured only in China. Our ability to spin that up in the case of war, in all cases takes months. In some cases years. Others not at all because raw materials can only come from China. Think on that.
China only needs to take down 80% of our power grid for about one month to bring us to our knees while the precious subs, carriers and naval aircraft are doing what they do. An analysis commissioned by Congress estimates that 50% of the population could perish after one month with no electricity. 90% possible after one year. That should be sobering.
War is bad. Don't do it.
MountainRaven
03-13-19, 14:08
Subs present our one trump card currently. Even the US Navy recognizes, internally anyway, the the carriers will be targeted first and their survival measured in HOURS for those in theatre. The air assets with them. I agree about the aircraft as a whole.... however, who amongst you are really so naive to think the Chinese will face off against our strengths? Do you think in the land of Sun Tzu that they have not read the friggin book?
The Japanese read that friggin book. Didn't stop them from bombing Pearl Harbor.
Because groupthink doesn't care what your library looks like. Especially when your command economy starts to get shaky and you need to get everyone focused on someone outside your country to blame for your woes so your country doesn't fall apart again.
Are you thinking of the caterpillar drive? Seriously though, based on generally available/accepted information, including firsthand accounts from submariners, they don't have an attack sub that's even close to the Seawolf or Virginia in terms of quietness. Same has been said for the Ohio-class (just look up a picture of a Russia Delta SSBN and tell me that thing is remotely quiet). Only their newest subs feature pump-jet propulsion technology (no "screw"), which is huge for quietness - they did experiment with it earlier than we did, but never implemented it to any degree until their newest SSBNs. The Sierra-class, of which the Russians have 2 active (first launched in the late 80's, early 90's), do use titanium to some degree in their hull design, so theoretically they can dive deeper than what we know officially about American subs, but it's a poorly-kept secret that our subs are capable of diving much deeper than what's published.
Don't get me wrong, the Russians have come a long way in sub tech, but it's still one of the few areas where we have undisputed primacy. That, plus, as with any Russian military procurement after the mid-80's, none of their weapons are produced to any scale beyond trials, i.e., Su-57, T-14, etc. They love to tout weapons they end up building 10 of.
I always assumed depth and speed numbers were not even close to accurate.
The Japanese read that friggin book. Didn't stop them from bombing Pearl Harbor.
Because groupthink doesn't care what your library looks like. Especially when your command economy starts to get shaky and you need to get everyone focused on someone outside your country to blame for your woes so your country doesn't fall apart again.
Gotta create an enemy before the people figure you're the enemy. Some may say it was inevitable due to the economic sanctions and trade embargoes we placed on them , but F them, they were monsters in the region and to this day, everyone still hates them in the region, and for good reasons.
MountainRaven
03-13-19, 14:39
Gotta create an enemy before the people figure you're the enemy. Some may say it was inevitable due to the economic sanctions and trade embargoes we placed on them , but F them, they were monsters in the region and to this day, everyone still hates them in the region, and for good reasons.
My comments about a country collapsing weren't regarding Japan, but China. As I recall, the Japanese people chiefly viewed China as The Enemy during WWII, and that didn't really change until around about Okinawa, IIRC. Moreover, the Japanese government was never really on the point of collapse until the very end of the war, when the question before the Supreme War Council wasn't, "Do we attack the US?" or, "Do we shanghai Korean women into being prostitutes for the Army?" or, "Do we test biological weapons on Chinese civilians?" but, "Do we surrender to the Allies?"
Subs present our one trump card currently. Even the US Navy recognizes, internally anyway, the the carriers will be targeted first and their survival measured in HOURS for those in theatre. The air assets with them. I agree about the aircraft as a whole.... however, who amongst you are really so naive to think the Chinese will face off against our strengths? Do you think in the land of Sun Tzu that they have not read the friggin book?
Interesting assumptions, many of which have been shared for a few years now. The May 2017 issue of proceedings has a good article that brings up a lot of your points.
Torpedoes are the significant concern for sure. That's said, we saw with the USS America that sinking an aircraft carrier is a lot harder in reality than it is on paper. That girl took many many many hits of targeted explosions before she sank.
Carriers will continue to serve a significant role, and three things that are in their favor as an effective instrument are being surrounded by its group, screening submarines, and mobility. Of course the Achilles heel is all it takes is one or two well place torpedoes or missiles, if not to sink it, then to disable it to a point of not being used. God forbid if you are driving the plane that has the land on a carrier you can't land on and there is no land in 3000 miles.
I agree in that there needs to be better strategy and more effective platforms and not put all our eggs in the carrier basket. Submarines and unmanned platforms are probably the wave of the future.
Adrenaline_6
03-13-19, 15:34
As quiet as required to prevent the other side tech from detecting you. I assume that tech is always improving and a sub can't be too quite.
But like I mentioned, the Ohio class is already quieter than the ocean around it. Being quieter, I would think, solves nothing. Maybe they can now run faster and still maintain that level of quietness, but being quieter is a moot point don't you think?
I read/heard somewhere that the modern subs are quieter at flank speed than the 80's tech sub sitting tied to a dock with their reactor running.
Are you thinking of the caterpillar drive? Seriously though, based on generally available/accepted information, including firsthand accounts from submariners, they don't have an attack sub that's even close to the Seawolf or Virginia in terms of quietness.
I may not be using generally available/accepted info. My mistake.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we are at war with China and Russia at the same time, I'll focus my attention on the Chinese military sleeper cells in the US running those massage chairs in malls. You know the ones they call "Panda Break"? Li Ping Chang will disappear from his chair at the Mall and be sabotaging power sub-stations and other infrastructure.
But like I mentioned, the Ohio class is already quieter than the ocean around it. Being quieter, I would think, solves nothing. Maybe they can now run faster and still maintain that level of quietness, but being quieter is a moot point don't you think?
I read/heard somewhere that the modern subs are quieter at flank speed than the 80's tech sub sitting tied to a dock with their reactor running.
A tad above my pay grade, but my understanding is it's a constant cat and mouse game where they're tech one step behind ours in terms of how quiey we are and their ability to detect us. I do know there was a time we knew where all their subs were, and they didn't know where most of ours were due to the wide gap in tech between us. I know they made progress in their subs quietness, then they collapsed and their programs went to chit. I'd imagine a sub really can't be too quiet, so improving that aspect always a goal. That's my non professional understanding of it. It may also be out tech is many steps above theirs and their being able to detect us not a major focus vs other goals, but no doubt what we know considering how secretive the sub service is, it's really a WAG on my end. Maybe they're now working on increasing the noise level as to not be appear as a black hole on the ocean. :cool:
I write about subs a bit in my fiction as I love those boats. My uncle was a LT sub commander in WWII and was chased around a bit by the Japanese. News of the next gen subs:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a24071288/the-navys-next-attack-submarine-will-be-big-expensive/
Folks that I know whose job it is to know tell me that China's entire conventional mil emphasis is defensive + regional power projection. Which is formidable, but does not have much force projection beyond neighbors / regional.
Minimal deep sea sustainment capability, etc.
Yep, good anti ship missiles. A bunch of subs which would be quite good at coastal/ regional patrol/defense. And are doing so.
And yes, big giant armies. But again, without much capability to project across an ocean. But very strong defensively and regionally.
Russia is different, but has some of the same issues. Both have huge borders they have to defend, which is why they need the big armies. Both have huge reserve elements which could be called up.
Not to say that if desired, they could not Duke it out with us. But a Red Dawn type invasion of the US military scenario would be virtually impossible without internal subversion, also unlikely. And very difficult logistically.
But why bother, we are driving China's economy. Get military with us, we'd fold on our significant debt obligations. They would crash.
Play dirty bomb or EMP, we'd retaliate with nukes.
Supposedly similar with Russia. Insufficient deep sea sustainment. We have 11 supercarriers. Russia may have 1 that is more than an aircraft/helo cruiser. Sold their planned supercarriers apparently to the Chinese. Maybe China has one. Maybe.
You guys can diss the carriers, but really hard to do large scale warfare without them.
Lots of things to worry about. But China/Russia invading the US in a military attack is not one I lose any sleep over.
Little green men, cyberstorm, commercial warfare, proxy wars, subverting allies, yep those are all things to keep an eye on as they are real risks. Maybe even the panda massage chairs sleeper cells!
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-19, 20:49
I always assumed depth and speed numbers were not even close to accurate.
Always thought the sonar nets and signal processing acting like the AWACS Of the sea was the real advantage.
The_War_Wagon
03-13-19, 21:43
Did the simulation account for a rifleman, behind EVERY blade of grass?
vicious_cb
03-13-19, 22:07
Folks that I know whose job it is to know tell me that China's entire conventional mil emphasis is defensive + regional power projection. Which is formidable, but does not have much force projection beyond neighbors / regional.
Minimal deep sea sustainment capability, etc.
Yep, good anti ship missiles. A bunch of subs which would be quite good at coastal/ regional patrol/defense. And are doing so.
And yes, big giant armies. But again, without much capability to project across an ocean. But very strong defensively and regionally.
Russia is different, but has some of the same issues. Both have huge borders they have to defend, which is why they need the big armies. Both have huge reserve elements which could be called up.
Not to say that if desired, they could not Duke it out with us. But a Red Dawn type invasion of the US military scenario would be virtually impossible without internal subversion, also unlikely. And very difficult logistically.
But why bother, we are driving China's economy. Get military with us, we'd fold on our significant debt obligations. They would crash.
Play dirty bomb or EMP, we'd retaliate with nukes.
Supposedly similar with Russia. Insufficient deep sea sustainment. We have 11 supercarriers. Russia may have 1 that is more than an aircraft/helo cruiser. Sold their planned supercarriers apparently to the Chinese. Maybe China has one. Maybe.
You guys can diss the carriers, but really hard to do large scale warfare without them.
Lots of things to worry about. But China/Russia invading the US in a military attack is not one I lose any sleep over.
Little green men, cyberstorm, commercial warfare, proxy wars, subverting allies, yep those are all things to keep an eye on as they are real risks. Maybe even the panda massage chairs sleeper cells!
Ding ding ding. Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Did the simulation account for a rifleman, behind EVERY blade of grass?
People need to stop watching Red Dawn and come back to the real world, sorry but you won't be using your AR-15 against the communist hordes(not foreign anyway). People should be thinking in terms of limited objectives like control of the Taiwan straits or seizure of the Baltic states instead of all out total war.
You guys can diss the carriers, but really hard to do large scale warfare without them.
Sure you can. CAGs are a supportive role to large (i.e., land-focused) campaigns, especially now that the heaviest platform will be the F-35. Seaborne campaigns are entirely different matter, and there you really do need the carriers. But agreed that in China nothing will be land-based, or significantly so, and that carriers will be an important asset in our Maritime strategy.
Did the simulation account for a rifleman, behind EVERY blade of grass?
Meh, they'd never invade, nor is that even on the radar I suspect of our focus. We can say a lot of things about the Russians and the Chinese, stupid is none of them. If it kicked off, they'd make sure it was some place to their advantage, where it was our supply lines that were stretched and vulnerable. If in the far future we are so militarily depleted and weak, and they so strong, they could mount an effective campaign to invade CONUS, who knows. That's generations away if it happens at all. Does not mean we ignore the possibilities. In our time, any conflict between us will happen in some far away location close to them for the advantage, and if we lose (due mostly to lack of will and public support) they will negotiate a peace deal that leaves them with what it is they wanted, and we'd lose major face and mojo with the world. As the world is now fully financially dependent on each other, I don't think any of us could actually afford it, and we will continue the proxy stuff and attempt to outflank each other in biz and influence. If we over isolate the Russians, we leave them with little to lose by going on an expansion push as the Japanese did, so it's best we keep them contained but don't pull post WWI thing they did to Germany, giving us WWII.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.