Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?"

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: U235

The Chinese do not have the modern maritime experience of the US. It took a lot of trial and error on our part to get carrier operations right. The Chinese can copy blueprints and steal technology, but they can't steal experience, especially combat experience. The PRC has never engaged in modern naval warfare. They have a long way to go. Tonnage means little when it's sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

Are you suggesting the US has engaged in modern naval warfare?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Not to mention that it's not like the USN hasn't been conducting combat or combat support operations constantly, on a global basis, for literally 70 nonstop years at this point. Regardless of whether or not you are counting playing games with the Russians during the Cold War.

Sure, but it's the smallest it's been since WW1, and there's clear evidence that the human side of the USN isn't trending upwards.

I get where you're coming from, though, but its experience of different value. I don't doubt that the USN is pretty slick at conducting carrier air operations, and that they'll be much better at it than the Chinese.

However, I think if you were to take a count of how many USN and PLAN sailors have had to do, say, damage control in a non-simulated setting, there might not be as much difference.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Not to mention that it's not like the USN hasn't been conducting combat or combat support operations constantly, on a global basis, for literally 70 nonstop years at this point. Regardless of whether or not you are counting playing games with the Russians during the Cold War.

Sure, but it's the smallest it's been since WW1, and there's clear evidence that the human side of the USN isn't trending upwards.

I get where you're coming from, though, but its experience of different value. I don't doubt that the USN is pretty slick at conducting carrier air operations, and that they'll be much better at it than the Chinese.

However, I think if you were to take a count of how many USN and PLAN sailors have had to do, say, damage control in a non-simulated setting, there might not be as much difference.

Perhaps not, but tech quality makes a big difference, too.

[AW1Steve]

3 ships hitting mines in and about the 1st gulf war. Countless collisions of vessels from a CVA (USS Jf Kennedy hitting the cruiser Belknap) , many destroyers colliding, two vessels hit by aircraft in Vietnam , one frigate hit by two aircraft launched missiles in the "Tanker war", one DDG hit by terrorist attack , three aircraft carriers (Oriskany, Enterprise and Forrestal) surviving conflagrations worst than most ww2 kamikaze strikes, several mine sweepers sunk by mines , one T-CVE sunk by sappers) , one intelligence ship savaged by aircraft and PT boats in 1967, several DD's hit by shore fire while on bombardment duty, (allegedly--still classifi9ed-- several SSN's surviving collisions........ , I don't know , I'd say that there was some real experience in the real world gained by the USN in the time mentioned. Of course these are just off the top of my head and I'm not a "black shoe" sailor. I do know there is enough for the damage control and ship design books to be re-written several times due to these incidents. During this time China has had inconclusive skirmishes with India (draws) and Vietnam (China CLEARLY lost). In the days since Vietnam ended the US and USN has had what...25+ campaigns? Several naval invasions (Grenada , Dominican Republic, Haiti , Panama ) and many, many campaigns with carrier based air. Yeah, practically no Naval experience. Right. [:D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

3 ships hitting mines in and about the 1st gulf war. Countless collisions of vessels from a CVA (USS Jf Kennedy hitting the cruiser Belknap) , many destroyers colliding, two vessels hit by aircraft in Vietnam , one frigate hit by two aircraft launched missiles in the "Tanker war", one DDG hit by terrorist attack , three aircraft carriers (Oriskany, Enterprise and Forrestal) surviving conflagrations worst than most ww2 kamikaze strikes, several mine sweepers sunk by mines , one T-CVE sunk by sappers) , one intelligence ship savaged by aircraft and PT boats in 1967, several DD's hit by shore fire while on bombardment duty, (allegedly--still classifi9ed-- several SSN's surviving collisions........ , I don't know , I'd say that there was some real experience in the real world gained by the USN in the time mentioned. Of course these are just off the top of my head and I'm not a "black shoe" sailor. I do know there is enough for the damage control and ship design books to be re-written several times due to these incidents. During this time China has had inconclusive skirmishes with India (draws) and Vietnam (China CLEARLY lost). In the days since Vietnam ended the US and USN has had what...25+ campaigns? Several naval invasions (Grenada , Dominican Republic, Haiti , Panama ) and many, many campaigns with carrier based air. Yeah, practically no Naval experience. Right. [:D]

You're missing the point slightly.

To clarify, I'm not saying that the USN has no naval experience, there's no doubt about that, what I'm getting at is that the vast majority of it is now at least generation old. The sailors that learned hard lessons in WW2, Korea and Vietnam are old now.

As I said above, if you were to take a poll between the USN and PLAN sailors as to who's plugged up real bullet holes in the ships, there wouldn't be much differece.

Even the Gulf War was nearly thirty years ago now - if you were a 18 y/o rating for that one you'd be in your mid-40's just now.

[Chickenboy]

If we're going to expand the discussion a bit beyond the navies respective abilities, or lack thereof, to include that of the respective air forces, Marines and Army, the capability gap continues to widen. All of these American (and, to a lesser extent NATO) have been 'blooded' consistently and persistently over the last 18 years now. They have learned a lot about how to conduct warfare with sister branches and Allied services. They continue to train for this robustly.

Sure, it may not be a war footing in all branches, but it's meaningful in any direct combat with likely opponents.

Does the PRCN have any meaningful combat experience in the last 50 years? Nope. Other than a few brushfire wars 40-50 years ago, they've got nothing there for their land or air force units either. All are totally unproven. Just because the PRCN has a handful of amphibious ships doesn't mean they can integrate these in any battle without some really tough strategic and tactical lessons learned that may, ultimately, be their downfall. Their much ballyhooed ballistic missile "carrier killers" and hypersonic weapons have been similiarly untested in a meaningful manner.

Woe unto the military power that relies on production trends at the expense of training. It's only when you put weapons platforms, training, experience, personnel and leadership together as a cohesive force that you get the ultimate answer as to who would prevail. There's also the issue of national will and willpower. Looking at any of these in a vacuum, without respect to the others is fallacious.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

3 ships hitting mines in and about the 1st gulf war. Countless collisions of vessels from a CVA (USS Jf Kennedy hitting the cruiser Belknap) , many destroyers colliding, two vessels hit by aircraft in Vietnam , one frigate hit by two aircraft launched missiles in the "Tanker war", one DDG hit by terrorist attack , three aircraft carriers (Oriskany, Enterprise and Forrestal) surviving conflagrations worst than most ww2 kamikaze strikes, several mine sweepers sunk by mines , one T-CVE sunk by sappers) , one intelligence ship savaged by aircraft and PT boats in 1967, several DD's hit by shore fire while on bombardment duty, (allegedly--still classifi9ed-- several SSN's surviving collisions........ , I don't know , I'd say that there was some real experience in the real world gained by the USN in the time mentioned. Of course these are just off the top of my head and I'm not a "black shoe" sailor. I do know there is enough for the damage control and ship design books to be re-written several times due to these incidents. During this time China has had inconclusive skirmishes with India (draws) and Vietnam (China CLEARLY lost). In the days since Vietnam ended the US and USN has had what...25+ campaigns? Several naval invasions (Grenada , Dominican Republic, Haiti , Panama ) and many, many campaigns with carrier based air. Yeah, practically no Naval experience. Right. [:D]

I should have read this first. Ditto.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I would be more worried about these "concrete carriers" the PLAN has been building in the island chains near its coasts.

I can see in a not so far away future this first island chain defense ring too risky for the USN surface ships (not submarines). but that is all what China can think to achieve, at least in our time.

Notice China needs to keep a big standing army to guard its borders with both India and Russia. The US in the other hand can refocused into navy relatively easy, if a new naval power tries to challenge

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

3 ships hitting mines in and about the 1st gulf war. Countless collisions of vessels from a CVA (USS Jf Kennedy hitting the cruiser Belknap) , many destroyers colliding, two vessels hit by aircraft in Vietnam , one frigate hit by two aircraft launched missiles in the "Tanker war", one DDG hit by terrorist attack , three aircraft carriers (Oriskany, Enterprise and Forrestal) surviving conflagrations worst than most ww2 kamikaze strikes, several mine sweepers sunk by mines , one T-CVE sunk by sappers) , one intelligence ship savaged by aircraft and PT boats in 1967, several DD's hit by shore fire while on bombardment duty, (allegedly--still classifi9ed-- several SSN's surviving collisions........ , I don't know , I'd say that there was some real experience in the real world gained by the USN in the time mentioned. Of course these are just off the top of my head and I'm not a "black shoe" sailor. I do know there is enough for the damage control and ship design books to be re-written several times due to these incidents. During this time China has had inconclusive skirmishes with India (draws) and Vietnam (China CLEARLY lost). In the days since Vietnam ended the US and USN has had what...25+ campaigns? Several naval invasions (Grenada , Dominican Republic, Haiti , Panama ) and many, many campaigns with carrier based air. Yeah, practically no Naval experience. Right. [:D]

You're missing the point slightly.

To clarify, I'm not saying that the USN has no naval experience, there's no doubt about that, what I'm getting at is that the vast majority of it is now at least generation old. The sailors that learned hard lessons in WW2, Korea and Vietnam are old now.

As I said above, if you were to take a poll between the USN and PLAN sailors as to who's plugged up real bullet holes in the ships, there wouldn't be much differece.

Even the Gulf War was nearly thirty years ago now - if you were a 18 y/o rating for that one you'd be in your mid-40's just now.

Except for all of the stuff the Navy's been doing since the '90s now with anti-terrorism and peacekeeping. That's not DEFCON 2 or anything, but it's still combat or combat-adjacent.

I guess you not being in the USA, maybe you're not as aware of the constant stream of deployments and low-grade action as we are.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Does the PRCN have any meaningful combat experience in the last 50 years?

It's not PRCN, it's PLAN - People's Liberation Army Navy [:D]. IIRC.

[rsallen64]

I'm not a frequent poster despite being a long time lurker, as my post count shows. When I first came into this forum, I thought my time in service from 1987-1995 and years of intense study on all things military made me very knowledgable. Reviewing threads, I realized how wrong I was. People here have FAR more knowledge than I ever dreamed about being, and I am always amazed at the level of real world experience here as well. There are some serious people with serious experience here, and they are many, not few.

So when I see posts slamming those who served by quoting Google searches it invokes two reactions: anger and laughter in equal measure. Anger for obvious reasons, because armchair warriors can never appreciate what the people who take the oath and sail (or march or fly or drive) into harm's way have endured or experienced that reading books, watching movies and playing games can never, ever portray accurately. And laughter because those who rely on articles posted online, in open forums or sources, will never actually get a true, accurate picture of what REALLY happens in the military and what our military is capable of. Think I'm wrong? Look back through articles posted from the past century and look at all the predictions about military capabilities, weapons, strategy, projected outcomes, etc, and see how many were wrong. The only things I know we can rely on are this: our military has a very long track record of success. Despite recent failures in strategy set by political forces, the military usually prevails at the operational and tactical level, and our military has some of the best equipment and the very best human material on the planet.

Yes, you can criticize, and rightfully so, failures in weapons systems and cost overruns, etc. That's a right people in uniform have fought and died for. You won't see that coming from Russia or China or North Korea, because there is no right to criticize there, so I don't believe much that comes from their side and there are many, many sources out there lately that are way too quick to attack our military and praise theirs without the healthy dose of criticism it deserves. And yes, you can criticize command failures that led to recent collisions, etc. But anyone that has saved knows that the volunteers that take the oath and WILLINGLY put themselves in harm's way in sometimes miserable conditions, are on the whole capable, competent, and resourceful.

Chickenboy's comments are right on point here, and as others have said, the US has been on low intensity combat operations for almost 20 years now, after coming out of a Cold War where the military treated every day like a day where war could break out at any moment. I am fully confident in our capabilities. Russia, despite 50 years of a Cold War and being at least the number two military in the world, still hasn't produced a single capable and operational aircraft carrier. That should tell you something. China has been a major power since 1949, but they have a long way to go to catch up to the US in terms of capabilities. Numbers alone won't do it.

[rustysi]

like electricity, so we can actually power all the electric cars we are supposed to have.

Unless they come up with some other material, there's not enough battery power available in the world to have all cars be electric powered.

[Timotheus]

Militarily, China is a great regional power.
USA is a great global power.

Where would the (God help us all) hypothetical conflict take place?

Anywhere away from China's coast, USA wins 100:1

Close to China coast... say.... near Taiwan... with swarms of missiles launched at American carriers?
I dunno.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

Militarily, China is a great regional power.
USA is a great global power.

Where would the (God help us all) hypothetical conflict take place?

Anywhere away from China's coast, USA wins 100:1

Close to China coast... say.... near Taiwan... with swarms of missiles launched at American carriers?
I dunno.

But would such a conflict even occur, given the global punishment the US would be able to inflict upon China? I doubt the USN would risk such an engagement and instead just do something like, "OK, no more sea trade for you."

I mean, I guess we could always start the war. There's no end to human stupidity. But it would be highly unlikely.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Imagine if instead of all those ships, rockets, and aircraft, the Chinese would have invested heavily in small hardcore cadre of die-hard arsonists who start fires in California each summer. Cant't the Chinese learn form the Japanese fire baloons of WWWII? Just saying...

Glad I wasn't actually drinking my coffee when I read this. [:D]

Assmetric warfare:

Russia: pays Mexican gangs to smuggle as many illegal Latinos to Southern California as possible to enlist them in as many EBT/section 8 housing schemes as possible to bankrupt California social services.

ISIS/Saudi Arabia: pay US homeless to move en masse to San Francisco to urinate/defecate in the streets 24/7/365, so the whole city becomes unlivable due to bad smells.

China: pays Chinese diaspora to get out more from the now unlivable SoCal and SF, and roam NorCal starting as many outdoor fires in woodland areas as possible. NorCal becomes unlivable

Then Stephen King and Tom Clancy start calling me, and ask me to stop stealing their ideas and play WITP:AE more. THE WORLD WONDERS

[Lokasenna]

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but public benefits (with the exception of emergency services, which includes emergency shelter) require documentation of legal residency.

Why San Francisco on the second one? Why not, say, Chicago?