Lord Trump's Gambit

[futon]

 

[Sardaukar]

29 minutes ago, futon said:

Imagine a PLAN + JMSDF force

(*^^*)

Kido Butai....but how'd they call Chinese CV TF? Dragon Butai..Tiger Butai?

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Reading cold war history, one is struck so often by the prophets of doom whom almost always were never right. I see no reason why the pending Cold War with China is going to be any different. Yes, a big shiny fleet they can have. But that isnt the same as going on operations with it, or having any easy means of maintaining it. Even the Americans struggle with their capability to maintain the fleet they have. And the chinese are not, because they are all conquering 20 foot high Asian supermen? They cant even maintain their housing market, dominion of the seas I think is still a very long way out of reach.

Of course, its entirely in the interests of the worlds navies, not to mention the shipbuilders, to pretend otherwise.

Besides weapons production, USSR was an economic midget. Oh, they had natural resources that they used to prolong system's agony, now the Chinese have the access to the very same resources from Russia while having a gigantic manufacturing base themselves.

Whether we compare populations or economies the 'West vs Chynah' is a lot worse (for the West) than 'West vs Soviet Bloc'. Advanced tech? Again, China is a lot closer here to the West than the USSR ever was. Social cohesion in China is much higher than in USSR, which is no surprise as it's pretty much a nation-state. I culd go onand on...

I don't think it's wise to assume that China is actually a paper tiger just because USSR/Soviet Bloc turned out to be one, which resulted in its disintegration.

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, futon said:

Imagine a PLAN + JMSDF force

(*^^*)

Tom Clancy, is that you?

 

[futon]

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

Kido Butai....but how'd they call Chinese CV TF? Dragon Butai..Tiger Butai?

Probably something like "Little Navy" for JMSDF.

(/_;)/~~

Edited May 20, 2024 by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Besides weapons production, USSR was an economic midget. Oh, they had natural resources that they used to prolong system's agony, now the Chinese have the access to the very same resources from Russia while having a gigantic manufacturing base themselves.

Whether we compare populations or economies the 'West vs Chynah' is a lot worse (for the West) than 'West vs Soviet Bloc'. Advanced tech? Again, China is a lot closer here to the West than the USSR ever was. Social cohesion in China is much higher than in USSR, which is no surprise as it's pretty much a nation-state. I culd go onand on...

I don't think it's wise to assume that China is actually a paper tiger just because USSR/Soviet Bloc turned out to be one, which resulted in its disintegration.

But here is the problem. The Chinese people have gotten used to economic growth. They start leveraging that to build a big navy and high tech Army, well of course they can do that. But the net result will eventually be declining living standards. And at the present moment, the Chinese economy is suffering severe hicups. Its far too early to say the glory days are over, but considering how much unattributed debt they seem to be carrying in semi official money lenders, there are grave causes for concern for the leadership about 'China's century'. Suddenly it no longer looks so clear cut.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/chinas-fiscal-revenue-shrank-27-in-jan-april-amid-shaky-economic-recovery/ar-BB1mHNS6

The Soviets did well for so long, because they didnt have to worry about the population. The Soviets never had it good, ergo they didnt have to produce any better. But even they suddenly felt the noose tighten around their neck when the Brezhnev mismanagement came calling in the mid 1980's. it seems inevitable to me that if the PRC cant continue to do better for its people, they will eventually grow dissatisfied. If the PRC values anything, its stability.

The lesson to me is 'dont rock the boat'. That doesnt mean that XI, who strikes me as a bit of a fucking idiot will not rock it, but at the same time, pure self interest you would think would impinge on his decision making. As arguably his limited reapproachment with the US would seem to indicate.

So no, Im not saying its a paper Tiger. Im saying its a state to be concerned about, but remains only one state, and with considerable territorial and political limitations and zero reliable allies. It doesnt mean that it isnt or cant be a threat. Its a caution to not keep projecting infinite strength on their part, or its going to create a generation of politicians unwilling an unable tos tand up to them, just as they were unwilling and unable to stand up to Putin's Russia.

China has a nice fleet. I respect it. I refuse to start worrying about it, till it turns up in serious numbers in the English channel.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tom Clancy, is that you?

 

I'm some what serious though. I have to be flexible. 

Another occurance. The Brits don't care about a global navy anymore. Too many don't see the PLAN a thing to worry about. The endurance of long term deterrance is at risk. Only active long term attention and commitment can keep deterrance high enough.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Let me clarify,  we have AMBITIONS to have a global navy, to be a global player. The sad truth is that the guys most keen to have that, Central and Right Wing Tories, are seemingly the least willing to pay to fulfill that ambition. I think inevitably we will concentrate on Europe for the next decade. After that, maybe with a recovering economy, maybe we will rediscover global projection again. I hope so.

Here is the thing. The PRCN dont turn up in the Gulf worth a damn. They dont turn up in the Gulf of Aden. They rarely turn up in the Mediterranean. One in a blue moon travel through the English channel. Almost total nonentities in the Baltic. Not there in the North sea. Are wholly absent from the North Atlantic. The Royal Navy, for all its overstretching, actually has more of a global presence than the PRCN. Which to me says that their fleet is either for show, and not for go, or they are a corner of a very narrow strategy centralized on Taiwan, and not particularly interested in being a global player.

For the Taiwanese, this is serious shit. I feel seriously bad for them. For us? We are more concerned about the Argentinians, whom thankfully are considerably more inept and power projection.

[futon]

The PLAN has been routinely been sending 3 worships to its base in Djibouti and patrolling waters for 10 years now. Houthis don't target PRC ships. PLAN has been around, training with Iran, Pakistan, and South East Asia countries. It's half global. PLAN subs in yhe Indian Ocean have been a concern for India.

[futon]

That recent CSIS that Corinthian posted had the army guy saying we're cranking up 155mm arty shell production, it's happening. The Navy guy on the hand, SM missiles.. not so much. 

[futon]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Let me clarify,  we have AMBITIONS to have a global navy, to be a global player. The sad truth is that the guys most keen to have that, Central and Right Wing Tories, are seemingly the least willing to pay to fulfill that ambition. I think inevitably we will concentrate on Europe for the next decade. After that, maybe with a recovering economy, maybe we will rediscover global projection again. I hope so.

Here is the thing. The PRCN dont turn up in the Gulf worth a damn. They dont turn up in the Gulf of Aden. They rarely turn up in the Mediterranean. One in a blue moon travel through the English channel. Almost total nonentities in the Baltic. Not there in the North sea. Are wholly absent from the North Atlantic. The Royal Navy, for all its overstretching, actually has more of a global presence than the PRCN. Which to me says that their fleet is either for show, and not for go, or they are a corner of a very narrow strategy centralized on Taiwan, and not particularly interested in being a global player.

For the Taiwanese, this is serious shit. I feel seriously bad for them. For us? We are more concerned about the Argentinians, whom thankfully are considerably more inept and power projection.

The bold at the beginning and the bold at the end are logically inconsistant. 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

a brief tour of the internet over the weekend was inconclusive.

I found links that supported my recollections and I found links that didn't.  The hard data presented here is much appreciated.  Searches generated by AI are not comparable to old fashioned searches.  Strangely, lots of results were nearly identical in wording even when written by different people. 

Regarding the PLAN, the threat is real.  Now the one calculation is who will buy China's merchandise if China does start a regional conflict that escalates?  Trade protection does require customers (for outbound trade anyway).

[futon]

4 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

a brief tour of the internet over the weekend was inconclusive.

I found links that supported my recollections and I found links that didn't.  The hard data presented here is much appreciated.  Searches generated by AI are not comparable to old fashioned searches.  Strangely, lots of results were nearly identical in wording even when written by different people. 

Regarding the PLAN, the threat is real.  Now the one calculation is who will buy China's merchandise if China does start a regional conflict that escalates?  Trade protection does require customers (for outbound trade anyway).

Europe. Post-Brexit UK Navy will stay in Europe as Burkes sink in the Pacific.

[Stuart Galbraith]

25 minutes ago, futon said:

The bold at the beginning and the bold at the end are logically inconsistant. 

Not at all. Ambitions and concerns are entirely different rationales. When you come down to it, the pacific isnt our territory, and the Falklands is. We will cut our cloth accordingly, if we cant afford to do anything better anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

a brief tour of the internet over the weekend was inconclusive.

I found links that supported my recollections and I found links that didn't.  The hard data presented here is much appreciated.  Searches generated by AI are not comparable to old fashioned searches.  Strangely, lots of results were nearly identical in wording even when written by different people. 

Regarding the PLAN, the threat is real.  Now the one calculation is who will buy China's merchandise if China does start a regional conflict that escalates?  Trade protection does require customers (for outbound trade anyway).

But to whom? To Europe? Im not seeing it. Not until they start fighting to gain influence over Africa to vacuum up all the rare earth elements.

There is an article here on PRC Carrier operations. This is far less blue water operations, than once around Taiwan and back. This is directly comparable to Soviet fleet operations at the end of the cold war. Its little more than projected coastal defence, not deep water operations with the ambition to take on the US and Japan.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/lessons-changing-geometry-pla-navy-carrier-ops

 

[Ivanhoe]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not at all. Ambitions and concerns are entirely different rationales. When you come down to it, the pacific isnt our territory, and the Falklands is. We will cut our cloth accordingly, if we cant afford to do anything better anyway.

 

Assuming Milei remains in office, Britain's only Falklands concern is if Milei manages to convert Falklands sheep to libertarianism.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well I dont disagree. But we still have to retain a garrison, and it remains extremely expensive to maintain.

Id like to believe it realistic we could provide an aircraft carrier for use in the pacific. But in truth, till we develop hypersonic antiship missiles (and hopefully anti ballistic missile defence capability), as well as the manpower to sustain such an eventuality, its going to remain a nice idea. And will remain on the back burner, simply because the pacific isnt at the core of our interests.

Its not that I dont want us to do such things. But I want a British base on mars as well. I dont believe we can afford to do that either.

[futon]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not at all. Ambitions and concerns are entirely different rationales. When you come down to it, the pacific isnt our territory, and the Falklands is. We will cut our cloth accordingly, if we cant afford to do anything better anyway.

 

But to whom? To Europe? Im not seeing it. Not until they start fighting to gain influence over Africa to vacuum up all the rare earth elements.

There is an article here on PRC Carrier operations. This is far less blue water operations, than once around Taiwan and back. This is directly comparable to Soviet fleet operations at the end of the cold war. Its little more than projected coastal defence, not deep water operations with the ambition to take on the US and Japan.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/lessons-changing-geometry-pla-navy-carrier-ops

 

The thing is that that article is using only Japanese observations as a source. The Japanese don't follow the Chinese group beyond the Japanese area such as towards Guam.

https://www.twz.com/chinese-carrier-recently-sailed-near-guam-enters-south-china-sea 

Or passing around the Philippines.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/236421-image-shows-chinese-aircraft-carrier-passed-philippine-waters/

 

By now, the number of times they send a carrier group out is starting to stack. https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38972-cold-war-the-reimagined-series/&do=findComment&comment=1598923

It's all experience that's going to come together in the Fujian. 

[Josh]

You know we have a lot of China threads, political, economical, and military. This discussion seems more fit for the “peaceful rise” thread perhaps.

my summary: clearly the PRC has built up a technologically advanced military practically overnight by historical standards and is an obvious economic juggernaut. I think we are seeing the cracks in the economic system only just now, greatly accelerated by the mismanagement of Covid. It seems likely the Chinese economy has permanently down shifted to western levels of growth in the medium term due to a number of systemic factors (decreasing labor force, over investment in infrastructure, over development of property). Long term, the One Child policy has almost certainly created a future of economic stagnation barring an unprecedented separation of labor from productivity.

In the short term China is a huge economic and military threat, and IMO its greatest window of relative military advantage is now through the end of the decade, with the last couple years likely seeing things start to go against them. I think US developments in weapons production, proliferated space systems, unmanned systems, and asymmetric warfare in general start to make things more difficult for the PRC in roughly 2028, with continued inventory increases of these anti access/counter anti access systems increasing heavily there after.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, futon said:

That recent CSIS that Corinthian posted had the army guy saying we're cranking up 155mm arty shell production, it's happening. The Navy guy on the hand, SM missiles.. not so much. 

The USN and USAF are attempting to greatly increase their stand off PGM production. It will take until nearly the end of the decade for these efforts to make a substantial increase in inventory, however.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

 

Regarding the PLAN, the threat is real.  Now the one calculation is who will buy China's merchandise if China does start a regional conflict that escalates?  Trade protection does require customers (for outbound trade anyway).

A US-PRC war would necessarily involve a massive trade dislocation for both, and probably the world in general. It is hard to imagine a global depression is prevented in such a conflict. But Xi might feel that the potential of a Chinese century is slipping through his fingers and go the Russian route. There are some parallels with current day China and WWII Japan, if one substitutes high technology imports for oil.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Josh

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is an article here on PRC Carrier operations. This is far less blue water operations, than once around Taiwan and back. This is directly comparable to Soviet fleet operations at the end of the cold war. Its little more than projected coastal defence, not deep water operations with the ambition to take on the US and Japan.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/lessons-changing-geometry-pla-navy-carrier-ops

 

The PLAN currently lacks sufficient air cover for blue water operations against a near peer competitor. That clearly is changing. But in any case, their direct interests *are* mostly right off their own coasts.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, futon said:

That recent CSIS that Corinthian posted had the army guy saying we're cranking up 155mm arty shell production, it's happening. The Navy guy on the hand, SM missiles.. not so much. 

Some mildly hopeful news on that front:
 

 

Virtualized Aegis is basically the Burke Flight III and DDG 2.0 upgrade using SPY-6; it basically is an Aegis hardware emulator running on more modern commercial processors that are easier to upgrade.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Josh

[Tim the Tank Nut]

it is still amazing to me that the USN is using computer tech that was developed when LucasArts Strike Fleet came out

[Josh]

Well Aegis has changed rather dramatically since then; it’s not like either the hardware or software has been standing still all that time. There were at least 9 different arrangements, with the virtualization being the 10th iteration of a Baseline 9 configuration. So even the oldest ships have a considerably more advanced configuration than the 80s.

[Stuart Galbraith]