Change itself can be destabilizing because it devalues the impact of earlier investments which have been leapfrogged by new developments. Aviation Week has more details on China’s antiship ballistic missile system which can sink US carriers from firing positions far inland and can cover the whole of the South China Sea. However the missile is still in development. “It is a high-tech weapon and we face many difficulties in getting funding, advanced technologies and high-quality personnel, which are all underlying reasons why it is hard to develop this,” according to the chief of the Chinese General Staff.
The U.S. Navy, mindful of the threat and no less focused on advancing its technologies to protect its fleet, remains confident in its ability to project naval power globally on the surface as well as under water. But for less technologically advanced navies of the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming difficult to see how in the decades ahead they can stand up to an opponent that can target surface ships with hypersonic homing warheads that can range more than 1,500 km (900 mi.)—and perhaps much farther.
China Daily is citing a range of 2,700 km for the revolutionary missile, the DF-21D, presenting the crucial data point in a report based on comments by the chief of the Chinese general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde. The Pentagon said last year the DF-21D’s range is “in excess of 1,500 km.”
Advertisement
If not a journalistic error, the statement means that U.S. aircraft carriers launching strike missions while keeping clear of DF-21Ds would need aircraft with even longer ranges than thought. It means that the DF-21Ds can be safely kept further inland. And, for Asian navies, it means the whole South China Sea can be covered from Guangdong, a Chinese province where DF-21Ds are based.
The appearance of an operational DF-21D might mean that naval aviation can no longer cover Taiwan and obsolesce the US carrier fleet at a stroke. In the worst case it would mean that the US Navy, upon which US supremacy fundamentally depends, would be neutered at a stroke.
In the May 2011 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute journal Proceedings, two Pentagon strategists, Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix and Marine Corps Lt. Col. Noel Williams, urge immediate cessation of U.S. aircraft carrier construction. Noting such threats as the DF-21D, they write, “the march of technology is bringing the supercarrier era to an end, just as the new long-range strike capabilities of carrier aviation brought on the demise of the battleship era in the 1940s.”
Skeptics respond that the DF-21D’s kill chain can be broken in several places—for example, in target detection and tracking before launch, communication of targeting data or final homing descent. Still, considering the crews and costs of surface ships, especially carriers, the stakes are high.
“Yes, the [U.S.] Navy would want to have a high degree of confidence that they could break a link in the kill chain, but there are no certainties here,” says Eric Hagt of the World Security Institute.
One of the weapons systems in a development race to counter threats like the DF-21D are directed energy weapons. But even if directed energy weapons were successfully developed by the Navy in time to combat new threats, they would mean that current ships, which cannot generate enough electric power to supply them with electricity, would not be able to use them. The USS Gerald Ford is carrier being designed with power systems which might be sufficient to power directed energy weapons, but that would leave many of the older Nimitz-class carriers and other surface combatants unsuitable from the point of view of electric power supply.
The advent of revolutionary new weapons would create a situation akin to the Dreadnought period in the early 20th century, when technology obsolesced the entire British pre-Dreadnought fleet. Britain in that case responded only by spending herself nearly to death to maintain maritime supremacy and lost it from subsequent economic decline anyway. Time is bringing a whole new series of weapons systems into the real of possibility. What counts in times of change isn’t the summation of investments but the marginal rate of investments by a country.
Critics have said that the Obama administration is fundamentally ignoring the Chinese threat. Commenting on the administration’s National Security Space Strategy (NSSS), Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the strategy fails because it does not adequately account for the Chinese threat to U.S. satellites.
“One gets the impression from this document that the Obama administration simply wants to ignore the Chinese threat in hopes it will just go away,” he said. “There is apparently no consideration of developing U.S. active defenses for space that would more effectively deter China.” …
The investment that China is putting into counterspace capabilities is a matter of concern for us,” [Ambassador Gregory Schulte, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy] added. “It’s part of the reason why the secretary of defense wants to talk about space as part of the stability dialogue with the Chinese.”
The administration has tried to replace defense spending with diplomacy. One of these initiatives is embracing the EU “code of conduct” agreement which will basically require everyone to disclose where their space assets are in order to ostensibly reduce debris pollution.
The administration has signaled that it is preparing to accept the European Union’s draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities with minimal changes to the document. An administration interagency review concluded last month that the code of conduct — aimed at reducing the amount of space debris that could collide into satellites — would not damage U.S. national interests in space or limit research and development into classified programs. …
“We are deeply concerned that the administrationmay sign the United States on to a multilateral commitment with a multitude of potential[ly] highly damaging implications for sensitive military and intelligence programs (current, planned or otherwise) as well as a tremendous amount of commercial activity,” 37 Republican senators said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. …
The lawmakers asked what impact the code of conduct would have on “the research and development, testing and deployment of a kinetic defensive system in outer space that is capable of defeating an anti-satellite weapon, such as the one tested by the People’s Republic of China in 2007.”
Proponents of the EU code of conduct praise the agreement as a way of minimizing space debris that can disable intelligence, military and commercial satellites.
The code of conduct is also an alternative to a space arms-control treaty supported by China and Russia that the Obama and Bush administrations have opposed as being unverifiable and counter to the U.S. national interest.
It is amazing that in an era where the President wants to raise the debt limit in order to make “investments” so little attention is being paid to developments which might well determine the security of the next decade.
“No Way In” print and Kindle edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
You forget that Obama (and many Democrats) hate America and feel that America is too rich and too powerful and that anything they can do to humble America is a good thing ™.
Obama feels that a powerful China (or other non-white power) would be a good thing and help the world move past the evil that Western Civilization has inflicted upon humanity.
.
He is not ignoring “the Chinese threat in hopes it will just go away”.
He is ignoring the Chinese “threat” hoping that it will eventually counter-balance and humble the white imperialists.
He is also hoping that if he ignores it now, when he is out of power those racist ReThuglicans will not be able to undo the “damage” he has done.
They’ll break the chinese missles with low energy lasers. here’s the latest developments
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-mit-spinout-unveils-powerful-direct-diode.html
low energy lasers. they may well be available by the time the chinese get the kinks out of their missile system.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-mit-spinout-unveils-powerful-direct-diode.html
I see this claim a lot, and like the claim that the government or whatever, is turning the US into Black Run America, it seems unlikely to me.
What seems more likely to me is that TPTB are acting in their own interests and have no ability to see the long-term consequences of their actions or how other segments of the population will perceive their actions … it also seems possible that they hate some segments of America because those people are an impediment to the successful implementation of their plans, but the strong claim made above seems unlikely.
something’s goofy with the postings, anyway:
Chinese industrial and military prowess expanded exponentially during the Clinton administration (oddly enough) but G W Bush did not do anything so I doubt future repubs will do anything to undo it either(see #1 momo). IMO there was an unreported cyber war and we lost it—if you think I’m nuts, just wait and events will prove it. (Interpret that sentence as you will!)
Was that the same Chinese Chief of Staff who said US is spending too much on its military? http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-us-spends-too-much-military-083839464.html
The Han sense profound military innocence in the oval office.
So an orgy of new weapons tumbles out.
——
As I’ve posted before: China is building weapons — and handing them out like Chiclets ™ without thinking through to ultimate consequences.
No nation has abandoned any major weapons platform until it’s proved a loser. BBs turned out to be VERY useful, I’d say essential, when America needed to project force onto hostile beaches.
China, an island power, is vulnerable to distant blockade.
Her strategic ambit is to conquer alien assets — and it will take a major war to pull that off.
In a day of atomic weapons, her population advantage evaporates.
The civilians need to regain control of the PLA and PLAN before the militarists blow things up.
It beginning to look like “The Sputnik Moment” was stillborn before the ink was even dry on the teleprompter.
Too many people have the urge to overhype the laser as a defensive weapon. These are NOT going to be Star Trek, Star Ways type lasers!
They will theoretically work during the boost phase of a missile, if it is able to penetrate the fuel tank and spark a fuel explosion. Same for an incoming aircraft or short range sea skimming missile. None of these can afford the weight gain it would cost to effectively shield them, which makes the laser (once it is operational) a theoretically effective defense.
HOWEVER – a ballistic warhead is another matter entirely. It’s speed comes from gravity and momentum – any fuel tanks have long been discarded, so no vulnerability there. No engines to hit, either. And since the warhead is a small fraction of the size of the overall launch vehicle, that *can* be given enough shielding to withstand any proposed laser.
Meaning that once it’s on it’s way down, it’s going to hit it’s target. The only way to stop a missile like the DF-21D is to hit it soon after it takes off, while it’s still over the interior of China.
Good luck with either the real time detection level or the weapon placement to be able to pull that off. Maybe if there were full time orbital weapons platforms, an armed “eye in the sky” – but putting anything like that in orbit would be an act of war in itself.
Forgive my ignorance on these matters ,but… Aren’t some Aegis ships armed
with missles that can counter such hypersonic missles?
Will pilotless planes now on the drawing board for carriers have the range to allow carriers to standoff far enough beyond the missle’s range to avoid being hit?
Is the technology that might be used to interrupt the communication and homing of the DF21D the same technology that might be used to interrupt our control of pilotless planes?
atomic weapons, that’s wht we used to hear about since TV was available to the mobs !
there’s more to be afread of lacking of water and of arable soils !
Look, you need to understand the Chinese. If they were to attack us, our ultimate weapon would be to send a GS14 to the basement of the Treasury department, and have him wipe out their 3.5T$ stash of bonds. That would hurt them.
What keeps me up is that the carriers are enormous targets. The F35 program is in trouble. And, the future is UAVs.
http://www.economist.com/node/18958487
The next gen carriers must be for UAVs and must be smaller and cheaper than the current ones.
Terminal spoofing will certainly be attempted…
The ‘rubber tank’ of WWII fame will make its reappearance — rubber carriers.
To counter the fakes the PLAN will attempt to ‘bell the cat.’
When the Kreigsmarine tried that during the Atlantic Campaign — life became hazardous and short.
—-
Red China is not about to invade Taiwan. The current tension is a ruse. It’s all about have an excuse to build out a blue water navy.
If Red China can regain control of its military — the natural progression of events would be towards mellowing out.
She’s too big to attack — for anyone.
She’s also too big to permit her to attack, she’d be Nazi Germany on steroids. There could be no upper limit to her aim.
Turn about is fair play. And a Smith and Wesson beats a full house. Conventionally armed ICBMs have been planned by AF Space Command for some time now. GPS guidance enhancement can make them very lethal. But where such weapons really belong is not at the Cape or VAFB and certainly not at existing ICBM bases (where there are huge problems with deploying them), but on subs.
Perhaps the Chinese recall too well Korea and Vietnam, where their territory was inviolate. B-29′s could not hit “The Bridges at Toko Ri” because that would mean overflying Chinese territory. Chinese airfields were safe havens. In Vietnam even getting within 20 miles of the Red Chinese border was reason for a letter of reprimand – thoughtfully sent to your next of kin in case you did not survive the experience.
In a direct shooting war with China, that kind of twisted Get Smart “Shuddap 99, you’ll make them mad at us” approach won’t matter. It’ll be “Show me yours and I’ll show you mine.” The only real issue is that if we also offer Peking a chance for an Academy Award in the category of “Largest Smoking Hole.”
Take a piece of paper headed “Things Gov’t Should Do” and divide it with two horizontal lines into three columns labeled “Always” “Possibly” and “Never” and then draw a horizontal line so you have six boxes. In the margin write Federal and State next to the rows. You should get something like this,
Things Gov’t Should Do
Always Possibly Never
Federal 1 2 3
State 4 5 6
In box #1 I’d put National Defense, maintaining a sound monetary system, and ensuring a Republican form of government. That last includes investigating and prosecuting local corruption.
In box #2 I’d put other enumerated powers and functions of the Federal government.
In box #3 I would put everything that belongs in box #4 that is not explicitly a concurrent function of the Federal government in box #2. Very few functions would be in both boxes #2 and #4, most of those would be I think Law Enforcement and Justice related due to an Interstate issue.
In box #4 I would put Public Safety and Education, except for narrow federal law enforcement issues noted above and education related to the administration and training of the Armed Forces and preparing the Militia for Federal Service. That last could include a national draft program with Defense, Disaster Preparedness, Homeland Security and Civics training.
In box #5 would go Public Health and Public Works, except as granted to the Federal government under the enumerated powers. Groups of States could cooperate via compacts to engage in large projects.
In box #6 should go those box #1 functions that are reserved to the Federal government.
Note that I am not a Libertarian. There is a role for the Federal government and if they stick to it they would be busy enough. I also have no philosophical objection to an activist State level government. Overreaching by a locality or state should be corrected by the market as rising taxes and declining conditions take their toll. In other words while I think that excessive Nanny measures by Mayor Bloomberg may be unwise I do not consider them unconstitutional.
The way to solve the Chinese military threat is easy; go back 20 years and stop funding them on the backs of American workers. There, now back to the future.
Is the answer different platforms, or more of the existing type of platform? Maybe the US carrier fleet is obsolescent at a stroke, or maybe it just needs more platforms. It has never seemed realistic to me to expect to maintain sea control in a conflict without losses of major units. 12-14 carriers are simply not enough.
I wonder if some sort of battleship is called for again? Seems like you’d need a big unit to carry directed energy weapons, and their power supplies, as well as missiles and reloads. A submarine is not much of an answer, it has to be relatively small to stay hidden, and technology is making hiding more difficult. Perhaps everything will go to satellites or land based systems, but I still think some kinds of mobile sea control vessels are essential. For the moment, that’s carriers and large cruisers.
We should have kept the BBs in service. What they needed was a reengining. Those M class boilers were simply to labor intensive. Guns work. They deliver throw-weight accurately over a distance. That is what kills. Even more important that is what impresses and leads to compliance. Sometimes you can end a war by flying a half pound of explosive through a window. Sometimes you reach peace by sending a dozen or more B-52s to bomb Haiphong at Xmas or a BB to deliver a broadside. You do what works.
The 16″ guns on the battleships could toss Volkswagens at most of humanity. Right now the biggest gun in the Navy is 5″. That simply doesn’t win the argument. The new LSDs have only a single 40mm gun. The Marines deserve better support. Using aircraft as flying artillery is wasteful at best. The Army years ago decommissioned all their guns larger than 155mm. Half a dozen of those old 8″ tubes could have given the insurgents in Fallujah a clear message and would have saved lives.
What the Navy could build, if they could build anything and were not being reduced to a Coast Guard, are ships equipped with 6″ Vertical Load Guns and lots of ammo. Given the modern ordnance and the commonality with land based systems we could do that at a reasonable cost. Those weapons would be nearly as effective as the old 16″ guns, but a lot less beautiful. Eventually, and in the long run we are all dead, the new rail guns will provide the ability to stand 200 miles off the China coast and systematically take apart her infrastructure and crater her runways. Until those come online we should rush a dozen cruiser platforms out with the 6″ VLG.
For dealing with China we should work to overcome animosities and build an alliance among the threatened neighbors (Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, The Philippines) and the regional Powers (India, Australia, Japan) by integrating systems and buying and sharing weapons and systems such as the F-35 and non-nuclear submarines.
Similar short-range thinking affects the future of the US Air Force.
“the [NSSS] fails because it does not adequately account for the Chinese threat to U.S. satellites.” So, our satellites are at risk.
And the Chinese are heavy into hacking our networks.
And the solution for long-range airpower is to rely more and more on UAVs that rely on ….(drumroll, please)… electronic networks linked through satellites. Brilliant.
If we lose either of those, what’s the backup plan for airpower?
I maintain that a man in the cockpit remains a reasonable investment against technological surprise.
I would ask, how does the US command decide if they are receiving a conventional ballistic missile and a nuclear one? If I were running the US I would point out to the Chinese government that a ballistic missile attack on a capital ship and it’s associated support ships and thousands of men would be met with a ballistic missile launch from the US – and we don’t field conventional ballistic warheads.
That oughta give them pause.
Looks like it’s time to resurrect Thor. You need launchers to launch these missiles and by the sounds of it they are fixed emplacements well inland. That’s one Thor fire mission away from a set of smoking craters well inland and no nukes involved, just a good application of 9.82m/s^2.
And the best part? Thor’s relatively insensitive to most current ASAT tech, which is predicated on relatively fragile satellites, not a crowbar with sensors, a radio and a small rocket engine.
Blast from the past,
“They deliver throw-weight accurately over a distance. That is what kills”
Yes, but only if you can get close enough, well, well within range of everything.
“that *can* be given enough shielding to withstand any proposed laser.”
Factually inaccurate sir. The FEL raises temperature of whatever it strikes to over 300,000 C. that is 20X hotter then the sun (surface temp). Materials cease to exist at that temperature.
Speed and target size don’t matter. Speed because Lasers move at light speed. Size because a beam can be set to scan an area. Like the rastor scan on a tube style TV.
The only defence against a FEL is a Liberal politician.
The Chinese “Carrier killer is a copy of a Soviet weapon from the late cold war period. The Soviets never could get it to guide.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/
This is a lot of whoie to quote Col. Potter. First they will have to put it in production. Right now it exists only as a test bed. It has no military purpose. The chances of it hitting a carrier is much much less then the chance of the Carriers escorts hitting it.
Back in the day, conventional wisdom was that Shore installations had the advantage over ship. Most of the evidence proved otherwise but since there was a sharp line BY THE NAVIES involved it was always possible to argue both ways. The better navies never lost, the second rate navies never won. As the range of the weapons increased the advantage moved more to the ships.
IN the 10-20 minutes it takes for an ICBM carrier killer to go from it’s launch silo to it target carrier that target has moved as much as 20 KM’s. That means the terminal guidance has to be good. Degrade that guidance and the missile misses.
One of the SPY-1 equipped escorts will put out the electronic signature of a carrier while the carrier hides.
The major point of the exercise in fearmongering is to trick taxpayers into reaching deep. Or ratcher the Politicians. Typical MIC FUD sales program.
We should nationalise Lockheed-Martin. That will bring the MIC to heel.
Some have said that China has a bigger problem than the US, given that China has purchased so many US securities …
However, what has each party lost if the US defaults?
China has lost a lot of labor, but it has plenty of factories, and I am sure they can keep the lid on.
On the other hand, if the US defaults …
Abbie Normal #19…
Could not agree more. This proposed reliance on remote UAVs has all the hallmarks of the magical thinking that brought France the Maginot Line. There are simply too many ways to break the management chain (EMP, interference, hacking).
At least – until the development of AI drones. Then all bets are off.
I’d say we are still a ways off that though.
25. Make Believe Media
Red China is WAY over estimated…
Rather like Imperial Japan.
She has crippling problems — like traffic in Beijing!
Superman — NOT!
What has the brainiacs going nuts is that the entire world is America-centric.
Only someone not hip-deep in finance and trade can glibly post of Red China being remotely equivalent to the USA.
Her ultimate problem — she’s but 20% ish of global populations — and NO ONE wants to be ruled by her — ever.
THE MOST EXTREME complainers are those who suffered when China was ‘on a roll.’ That means Korea, Japan, Vietnam. These players are buttressed by Thailand… on down.
By comparison: America is entirely weird.
She owned the planet in 1945 — with the Bomb.
So, she promptly give independence to the Philippines– Not exactly the British Imperial Treatment.
She then starts shunting HUGE monies to all and every. ( The Truman Plan / aka Marshall Plan )
EVEN the Soviet Union was to benefit from the Marshall Plan!
Stalin nixxed it. (!)
He’d hid all during the Great Patriotic War the American ( and British ) contribution to their victory.
( Half of all ‘Soviet’ copper/ copper wire; ALL of their vacuum tubes ( sole source factory destroyed in Typhoon ) (!) ; all of their steam locomotives ( Leningrad was ruined as a factory — and Stalin had put 100% of his production there.) Most of ‘Soviet’ rail came from America. The famous ‘Russian’ greatcoat was sewn in WEST VIRGINIA. (!)
—–
Taking that all in….
No one wants a world run according to Beijing’s attitudes.
Everyone would much, much, much rather have free spending America at the top of the heap — such as it is.
—–
There is no ‘get around’ on such deep, long standing fears and resentments.
The Imperialist Japanese committed simply no end of disgusting atrocities in China, Korea and elsewhere…
But they had inspiration.
—–
But for Clinton our relations with Russia would be 1,000 times better. That he favored muslims over the Orthodox will be a dark stain upon his judgement for ever.
—–
That Putin & Co still look West when the threat is East — is of constant astonishment.
Historically — ALL of the VERY WORST invasions have come from the East. Duh.
Napoleon and Hitler are so yesterday, painful to remember, but not relevant to the correlation of forces today.
—–
Beijing is still proof that there are generals clueless enough to think that atomic war can have positive outcomes — and that as MAJOR participants they’ll come out ahead.
Idiots. To be a major participant in an atomic war means that you’re toast. It’ll be everyone else that walks over your bones.
W notes the big problem is our leadership is projecting weakness (actually incompetence) and a focus on short term gain with no thought to long term consequences.
As I posted prior, our Navy is also looking weak, see: http://defensetech.org/2011/07/13/the-navys-readiness-woes/
See also: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/166866/
Potential enemies make their plans taking into account our perceived strength. When we look weak they plan to attack. When we appear strong they put their plans on the back burner and wait for the democrats to regain power.
18. Blast From the Past
Re: Naval gunnery
Agreed guns work well, but there are no guns that outrange anti ship missiles. The PLA can build a lot more cheap ASCM than we can build expensive gunships, and they will have home court advantage. Our naval missile defense systems will run dry before their missiles, and we don’t have a way to reload them underway.
See: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/166866/
It’s like this:
For “real” wars against countries with considerable military capabilities it makes sense to deploy small numbers of aircraft on smll, fairly stealthy warships, possibly using the new generation of fast and stealthy UAVs. That limits how much damage sophisticated weapons can do to the fleet. Losing a DE or “baby flattop” is much better than losing a CVN. Or a BB.
But for “kinetic military actions” or insurgencies like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we are deliberately not using our most lethal weapons we need big carriers and slow UAVs such as the Predator. These can let the politicans “bomb their way through yet another day” without having to think to much about the immediate consequences. And they never think much about the long range consequences, anyway.
Prior to WWII countries that occupied lawless territory, like Japan and Great Britain, developed “colonial” aircraft, ones with modest performance capabilities that reflected the fact that the opposition was far from first rate. Those aircraft, some of which were basically left over WWI designs, were utterly useless in a real war. For Vietnam the US developed such aircraft as well, consisting of converted trainers, armed cargo and liaision aircraft and armed helicopters and a very few original designs such as the OV-10. An armed
T-6 trainer is being promoted right now for that very kind of role.
If you have the money then you can buy forces that can do both missions, or sort of. But it’s not at all clear we are going to have the money.
what’s the best way to kill a carrier?
1. A nuclear warhead or two.
What’s the best thing to throw at an incoming ballistic missile or warhead?
1. An atomic weapon.
Make this clear to China Any missile shot at a Carrier will be assumed to be a Nuke, that intercepting a Carrier killer missile will be done over Chinese soil and will be a Nuke.
What’s the answer?
More Submarines able to launch F/A UAV while submerged.
stoicheion (#24) said “We should nationalise Lockheed-Martin. That will bring the MIC to heel.”
“stoicheion” You mean make them like the Ole USSR military Industry! Ya we know how well their stuff worked! if they hadn’t had Germany Scientist and then later stolen our (USA) plans they’d still be flying “Bi-Planes” I think our “MIC” has severed America exceptionally well! it is the Political corruption, Politicians and News Media that needs the “Over sight”.
Carriers are good for projecting force inland and for quickly bringing air assets to a particular theater (think Taiwan in this case) [they also make great staging ares for disaster relief]. However, with the advent of drones, their may come a day when nearly any size ship can be a carrier. Even then, missiles can often do the job of a jet strike.
I’m not saying carriers would go away, i’m just saying that the Chinese are investing a lot of money in our oldest and hardest to replicate tech. Kill a carrier and watch as a thousand drones and cruise missiles appear out of no where.
As for sea lines like the South China Sea, nothing beats a sub; as the imperial Japanese Navy found out.
I always believed that the U.S. should take a shortcut on submarines by partnering with the FRG to build U-boot under lisence in the U.S. and Germany. The Germans would go for it easily, and they could build a like number of boats here in the U.S..
The Germans build the best diesel electrics on the planet. A lot could be built for less cost than the average VA Class atomic sub.
blert said:
The Turks were not supermen either, but the Byzantine empire fell.
I doubt very much that Chinese are interested in initiating any war, let alone a nuclear war. However, I am sure they will throw their weight around to achieve their goals, initially in Asia and later elsewhere.
Also, you missed my point entirely, which was that the loss of prestige to the US in any default may well be worse than the loss of two carrier groups in battle, and all the Chinese have lost is some money, some spent labor, and they still have the manufacturing capacity.
Actually, I want to change part of what I said.
I doubt very much that the Chinese want to initiate a war with the US, however, I am sure they are happy to help countries like Iran, etc.
I can well imagine that they will engage in a little action in Vietnam towards the end of this decade as well, when US military strength is reduced somewhat …
China will retain the manufacturing capacity to employ large numbers of their unskilled workers in building low margin/low cost consumer products for Americans. There is an assumption we’ve denuded ourselves of our manufacturing capability. This is simply not true. But we have gotten rid of the labor intensive (i.e. unionized labor) portion of our manufacturing capability.
Some one should write a book China as Number One.
As to loss of US prestige, if we cancel the ChiCom held debt, we will be in a general war. Prestige will accrue only and completely to the party which emerges victorious irrespective of any other factors.
The Turks were not supermen either, but the Byzantine empire fell.
Right, it fell and the Turks were there. That doesn’t mean the Turks felled it. Just as if the US falls, it won’t be because any other power defeated us but because we decided not to make the effort to win; and the same is true of China.
The DF-21 is seriously over-hyped. It’s not like we’re sitting around waiting to be shot.
If the Chinese launch against a carrier it will be detected. The carrier strike group will begin evasive maneuvers. One of the DDG’s will launch its SM-3′s against the Chinese control satellites (China isn’t the only country with demonstrated ASAT capability). The other DDG’s will keep their missiles ready for a terminal-phase intercept. Meanwhile the SSBN in the Gulf of Alaska will be launching its D-5′s against Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou… MAD dictates that any attack by a nuclear nation on another nuclear nation will be met with a nuclear response.
The only result of this missile is that the CSG commander is going to keep his DDG’s on a shorter leash in the South China Sea.
Used to the sinking of an American capital ship by a hostile power was an act of war. When I was in the active force, an attack of one of our satellites in orbit by another power was also an act of war. That attack was considered an attempt to blind us in preparation for a pre-emptive attack. Seems like there is an awful lot of armchair quarterbacks on this board who really don’t have a clue one way or the other as to what we should do: get rid of the carriers, add more carriers, create out of thin air a fleet of small carriers with unmanned vehicles, do nothing.
Heck, at this point we seem to be panicking over an offensive system that requires an incredible amount of technological development, time, and an incredibly successful RDT&E effort long before this system is deployed. We are terrified of a system not yet fielded. Reminds me of Reagan’s Star Wars gambit with the Soviets – they were apoplectic too and we still don’t have Star Wars deployed.
Much to do about nothing if you ask me because by the time they field their new system, our Navy will be lucky to have a 50 ship complement – we will be sitting in port. Just look at what happened to Russia when their economy collapsed. They parked their whole fleet up around the Kola Peninsula and we did not hear from them for years. Until, that is, they started developing and selling to the world their own oil mined from within their own country. Dude! Novel idea.
What makes anyone here (who takes L3 seriously) think that we will have a fleet to put to sea what with this country running Pell Mell into an economic kill zone…of its own making?
My sense of it? If the Chinese took out one of our carriers, the press would blame the Captain of the ship, the sailors on board, and anyone else they could in order to “ensure” the Chinese that we wouldn’t dare default on our debt with them.
Anyone here think that this President would fight back?
I don’t.
For those of you that don’t think the President is doing this “on purpose,” remember that in high level accounting gross negligence is considered to be “constructive fraud.” The President of the United States, if he intentionally leads this nation to a catastrophic collapse is at least guilty of fraud and worthy of impeachment. If he leads the nation to a place of disaster by simple mistake when he (or his advisors) ought to know better, he is at least guilty of constructive fraud and in my view ought to stand for impeachment as well.
But the bottom line is that if he says in the end, “But I didn’t mean for any of this to happen…” he is going to be in very deep kimchi with the American people – on both sides of the aisle.
Blert,
regarding your comments @.27, most make sense to me. However, while you and I may agree that the results of a nuclear war are so bad as to negate any possible advantage a “winner” might achieve over an adversary, not everyone thinks like you and I do.
My study of the Soviet experience may not be as scholarly and rigorous as some, but I was profoundly struck by the lessons Soviet leaders seemed to take from the decades of slaughter of the 1920′s and 30′s. First, in the 1920′s Stalin imposed the Holomodor – a years-long program of systematic murder and starvation of Kulak middle class merchant farmers in Ukraine, after they resisted his efforts to force collectivized agriculture on their centuries-old thriving culture.
Estimates of total deaths for those two decades before WWII range from a minimum of about 6 Million to up to 20 Million soviet citizens. Then, in the last few years before the Germans invaded, Stalin purged the officer corps of the Red Army, sending at least 30,000 of his BEST OFFICERS to their deaths after prolonged public trials, disgrace, and torture. He knew the charges of treason, disloyalty, and incompetence were complete fabrications. His purpose was to (1) eliminate contenders for leadership of a potential coup, (2) demoralize and cow the survivors, to get them to fall in line under his diktat. When the NAZI war machine did invade, they killed another 20 or 30 million soldiers and civilians in just a few years.
We in the US CANNOT GET OUR HEADS AROUND FIGURES LIKE THAT. One statistic helped me — CCCP in WWII lost as many FIRST LIEUTENANTS as THE TOTAL OF ALL OFFICER CASUALTIES suffered by England and the US, COMBINED.
The lesson **I** believe was taken away from all that by the leaders of the Soviet Union is that a Nation CAN in fact, suffer the loss of a quarter or more of its population and STILL emerge victorious from a war.
““stoicheion” You mean make them like the Ole USSR military Industry!”
No! not at all. Why do you think that is what I wrote?
There is a huge difference between ‘nationalise’ and what the Soviets had.
39. Mad Fiddler,
Thank you for those numbers. My grandfather was a SAC officer and I’m sure he was familiar with the Soviet losses in WWII and collectivization prior to the war.
While the numbers you have may have slightly overstated the latter, there is no doubt that millions died, and not just in Ukraine. A relative on my wife’s side was one of those kulaks who resisted (the word comes from the Russian for ‘fist’ as in clenched fist, but really denoted anyone who owned a farm or had anyone working for them, i.e. the entire Russian ‘upper middle class’ of that day). He survived to die shortly before the war, by some miracle, we still don’t know how.
I’m glad too that someone pointed out here that some of this MIC war porn is still just jostling over a system that hasn’t been shown to work yet. When the Chinese hit a dummy carrier manuavering in the South China Sea at full steam, then I’ll be impressed (though most folks will rightly suspect a rigged test until proven otherwise). And at any rate, the gravest threat to American national security remains our own political class and Federal Reserve, with shadowy transnationalists like Soros or Strong somewhere in the back.
One of the reasons President Eisenhower made his ‘Military Industrial Complex’ speech and never quite bought into the hugely blown Soviet threat of the 1950s is that he was all too aware of how much equipment was diverted from SHAAF to Murmansk and Archangelsk from spring 42 all the way thru 45. The Sovs might very well have prevailed over the Third Reich without Lend Lease, but it’s doubtful they could have done so before the end of 1946 with an even more horrifying loss of life on all sides and among all the nationalities caught in between the Wolf and Bear’s struggle to the death. The Sovs were very good at packing up their gun and tank factories and moving them beyond the Urals, but they did not accomplish such miracles in locomotive, truck and jeep production. The Red Blitzkrieg aka Operation Bagration, the destruction of Army Group Centre about the time Hitler was preocuppied with Normandy was the greatest operational feat of the war on land. It would have been impossible without a great number of those 300,000 trucks and tens of thousands of jeeps and locomotives made in the U.S.A.
So yes, the Sovs did prepare to fight a nuclear war. But even they didn’t have the stomach for it anymore and were well aware of our overwhelming superiority well into the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
In any case, Bagration wiped out 300,000 Germans, the entire center of their front, in about two weeks this time of year 1944, well before Patton broke out of Normandy into open country. And by wiped out, I mean that — only about 10,000 German POWs who survived the war ever made it back to the USSR, and the Sovs understandbly after hearing about the starvation of the 2-3 million of their countrymen were not interested in taking prisoners during that fortnight when the roles were reversed and the Red Army was slaughtering the Wehrmacht the way the Wehrmacht slaughtered the Red Army in 41′.
The lesson I get is never fight a land war in Asia. Have populous friends, like the Northern Alliance or India, do it for you. What do we want there, anyway?
We should have left Astan in ’03 and never gone to Iraq. We should make sure that barbarian countries understand that we will not do a Marshall Plan for them if they attack us or collaborate with an attack upon us. When THEY decide THEY’RE ready to be civilized, we’ll help. Until then, we’ll return them to a condition that makes the status quo ante look like the good old days.
Once the administration starts cutting defense it will be interesting to see how long it is before we see a reduction in the carrier fleet.
Those big bad boys are expensive to keep running (although, not compared to the consequences of not having them
And yet, after all these years, Germany would seem to be in better shape than the UK or Russia.
Thanks to Werner Ehrhardt.
Put the counterpunch in orbit. Spaceborne systems trump land-based systems every time.
The look-down portion of Ballistic Missle Defense will be more than equal to the task of neutrlizing this latest from PRC>
Lasers:
There is much that is attractive about diode lasers…for machining and cutting. Unless there has been some unpublicized recent breakthrough, their beam quality is very low and beam quality equals range.
Free electron lasers have a lot going for them, but they are very heavy and cumbersome. A ship can be big enough to mount one or two, but they are power hogs.
All lasers are defeated by smoke or fog.
Guns are cheaper and a lot more wieldy. / erc
stoicheion (#40) “No! not at all. ~There is a huge difference between ‘nationalise’ and what the Soviets had” Really! How bout you try to explain! cause they are as close to being the same as a Red apple is to a Green one!
The death of US Military Strategy.
I see that the Chinese have been working on that one for some time.
Quoted from one comment at the above link:
The wholesale importation of lower average IQ peoples does not bode well for that technology ace-in-the-hole, either, both on the creation front and the use front.
related:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/21/beijing-develops-radiation-weapons/
they are working on EMP for Taiwan and our carriers.
This solves the retaliation problem for them, even with a competent president.
If they blind and neuter our CVGs in theater, are we going to send more CVGs to defend Taiwan? Are we going to nuke them (and then get megaton counterbattery) because a CVN loses radar and defense systems but not one of our sailors dies?
I think many here over estimating our (US) technology and Military far more then people are over estimating the Chinese; Couple years ago the Chinese regularly started blinding our Satellites with lasers, so much so the US complained about it in the Public media, quickly after that Chinese destroy their own satellite without warning anyone and without caring what would happen to their destroyed satellites debris, very soon after that US media release story about new type of Chinese Sub (and the hunt for new unknown sub base where it came from) much from what could be determined via Satellite pictures this new type of sub mimics the America Sea wolf design, (remember back in the 90’s the Chinese stole our most advance Nuke warhead design under Clinton watch along with other untold Technology transfers) fast forward a little and there the big hoopla in the media about a missile lunch from the California coast away from California, this of course was play down as a “Airplane” anyone seeing the video will notice there is a large cloud of “boost” smoke on the Ocean where the missile took off and any of the “airplane theories have the “airliner” flying from the “opposite” direction of the “Obvious” path on video and the video shows the “obvious” flames of the rocket while if it was a plane flying “towards the coast you would not see the “flames”, this my friends was a show by the Chinese to the US that they “Can, Will and Would” sneak in anytime they want and put missiles on target long before we would know who or where they came from! The Chinese may not have Carriers, but “Who needs stink’n carriers, we don’t need no stink’n carriers” to take us (US) out, BHO ain’t got the guts to nuke anything for any reason even if the Chinese took out a Carrier or two, taking out Diego Garcia, even hitting mainland USA, I think the US would win decisive nuke exchange with the Chinese and No I don’t think that would be the end of the world for us or anyone else, unlike the “Propaganda” videos of old where no one can live in a Nuke area for hundreds of years I believe Japan proves that to be “way over stated”! A nuke exchange between us and china would not be in the “Hundreds” of warheads ether so the size of the exchange would be very limited, except for the Chinese boomer subs (which they are not known to have many) our force would eliminate their nuke ability rather quickly, limiting their strike, it would be painful but it would be quick!
I guess a good question to add is; WWTRD (What Would The Russians Do) if a Nuke dust up started between China and US? does that lead to “at what point would Russia jump in” if they were too?
53. CharlesWhite
“The Chinese may not have Carriers, but “Who needs stink’n carriers, we don’t need no stink’n carriers” to take us (US) out”
Chuck, the Chinese are building their first carrier and working on training an air wing for it. Carriers are very, very useful.
However, they are not looking to fight us carrier vs carrier and plane vs plane because they would lose very quickly. They are trying to neutralize our CSGs with full spectrum methods while they take Taiwan quickly. See my comments in the prior China thread: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/166866/
I would be surprised if they succeed, but not surprised if they tried. We are projecting weakness on many fronts, and they are exploiting. That’s the real problem. If we keep looking stupid and unprepared they are sure to step up their probes and will eventually cross the line to a shooting war.
“our force would eliminate their nuke ability rather quickly, limiting their strike,”
The last thing I want to see is a nuclear exchange with China!
Their missiles are not silo based, but deployed on launch vehicles stored deep inside caves in mountainous areas. Think Cheyenne Mountain. After our nuke hits the mountain, they drive out and launch. They can even wait a few days or weeks to do that. Unless you can keep B-2s over all the possible launch areas 24-7 we get hit.
Where do you think the Norks got the idea or storing their artillery safe inside mountains and driving it out to fire? They even have an airbase in a mountain.
54. CharlesWhite
“What Would The Russians Do”
Amazingly, the Soviets planned a preemptive strike on the Chinese nuclear assets in 1969 and we told them that we would not sit on the sidelines. (This is probably one reason the Chinese do store their missiles well underground).
Today I think Moscow would happily let their biggest rivals destroy each other.
Jay (#55), I am well versed in history, fully understand carriers, I understand the mobile launcher strategy, you’re missing the point (along with the humor)… The Chinese really don’t need Carriers at this time to pick a conventional fight and win one with the US right now and we (US) really have limited understanding of just what “Advanced” assets they currently posses, my other points are; they are willing to go over the line when push comes to shove, they are not capable of going toe to toe in a nuke dust up, mobiles are just as vulnerable to local command pissing their pants and backing down when Beijing is molten glass and Americans are eating their command chain up faster than their getting answers from, like the Russkies of old, they (local Chinese commander) very unlikely to act without higher authority and their targeting command structure is not as responsive to a quick fight as would be required (would also one of their first losses in a fight). Of course my main point is BHO got no balls so anything and everything is Lose/Lose for USA.