5 ms·

Not sure the US is eager to get into a kinetic conflict with China, which actually has a larger navy, and more importantly, is in their own front yard rather th

Not sure the US is eager to get into a kinetic conflict with China, which actually has a larger navy, and more importantly, is in their own front yard rather than 10,000km from home.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lmm 4y ago
The US has a large naval presence in the area, not least the ships based in Japan. No-one wants a shooting war, but the US is eager to keep China contained, and enforcing the EEZ rules serves that interest.
mlindner 4y ago
US Navy is stationed closer than the Chinese navy. The US’s seventh fleet is permanently based out of Yokosuka Japan. Only US fleet not based out of somewhere in the US.
- jakear 4y ago
  The fifth fleet is based out of Bahrain.
- largepeepee 4y ago
  Not true. Besides 7th in Japan, there's 6th fleet is in Italy and 5th in Bahrain. So really half the US Navy is always stationed overseas with the first fleet being inactive.
smt88 4y ago
> China, which actually has a larger navy The US has a far more advanced navy (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) and many more aircraft carriers. Aircraft are extremely important in naval conflicts.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Yawn. China itself is the larger aircraft carrier. They also have advanced rocketry, which may render the other ones obsolete.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  China doesn't need aircraft carriers though. They aren't trying to fight wars 10,000km from home. They have hundreds of air bases in China.
  - smt88 4y ago
    The US literally can't fight a war 10,000 km from "home" (a friendly country with military bases) because we have an enormous number of bases. Most importantly, we have tons of bases in Japan and South Korea[1]. 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      One task force out of Japan is probably insufficient against the entire PLAN
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  > (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) If each one is armed with a few anti-ship missiles, a swarm attack from many different directions might be a real threat to a carrier group. You either waste a ton of ordinance taking them all out, or some portion are able to launch against you.
  - defrost 4y ago
    There was a genuine video put up in the last three months and then pulled of a Chinese demonstration of a "swarm navy" deployable from an AI drone unmanned carrier mother craft. It's a serious threat as everything is low low cost and big on bang. The US would be looking at defending itself from 100+ unmanned cigar boats each packed with enough explosives to make a serious dent at water level and all interoperating like a flock of birds, some drawing fire while others push through.
baybal2 4y ago
[dead]
mlindner 4y ago
Most of the ships aren’t ocean going vessels. They’re coastal ships.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  PRC has more proper blue water surface and subsurface combatants than USN currently and has for years. Many of which more modern. Last years count of "ocean going" / blue water capable is like ~350 PLAN vs ~300 USN. PRC also has a fuckload of "coastal" ships, but at this point even Chinese coast guard has sizable blue water fleet (retired PLAN ships go there). US still has more displacement via super carriers, better subsurface and larger replenishment fleet to enable more persistent blue water ops. Incidentally PLA is rapidly building up replenishment capabilities, but ultimately most of fleet will stick around PRC shores, with some moving into IndoPac for SLOC security or Africa for anti piracy. But currenly PLAN has MORE "ocean going" vessels than USN, and gap is expected to widen to PLAN 400+ wheras USN ship building lucky to maintain 300 by end of decade.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    If you build hundreds/thousands of boats with little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public then it's easy to claim large navy sizes. My previous comment was with respect to actual effectiveness. China has no significant blue water navy.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      > little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public Citation needed. This is borderline beyond "useful idiot" hot take because even DoD propaganda/analysis or defense wonks do not allege this, and they allege a lot of dumb shit with respect to PRC modernization. Western assesment of PLAN in last few years, with respect to blue water surface combatants, being commissioned at tremendous rates, is one branch where recent DoD writings / analysis has no substantial tech/hardware criticisms, relegating to, their hardware good but maybe software (training/jointness) lacking. Also to repeat "Many of which more modern". PLAN's blue water surface combatants built since 2010s are considered on par, if not superior with equivalent USN platforms in terms of systems and armaments, including latest flights. Certainly more than the significant portion of USN's aging hulls, many of which are not modernized to latest tech and are held together by duct tape / soon to retire. Like USN isn't going to have anything comparable to a type 55 for another 10+ years in DDG(X). It's hard to overstake the amount of USN program/procurement fuckups in the past decades and ongoing state of US ship building that enabled PRC to catch up in both quality and quantity. Majority of which concentrated in PRC backyard, on new hulls with better maintenance and readiness rates, that widens regional blue water naval power gap even further.
more_corn 4y ago
It’d come down to tech. The us probably has a leg up today. China being able to field new tech faster would pull ahead in a protracted conflict or one that starts in five or ten years.

Not sure the US is eager to get into a kinetic conflict with China, which actually has a larger navy, and more importantly, is in their own front yard rather than 10,000km from home.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lmm 4y ago

The US has a large naval presence in the area, not least the ships based in Japan. No-one wants a shooting war, but the US is eager to keep China contained, and enforcing the EEZ rules serves that interest.

mlindner 4y ago

US Navy is stationed closer than the Chinese navy. The US’s seventh fleet is permanently based out of Yokosuka Japan. Only US fleet not based out of somewhere in the US.

jakear 4y ago
The fifth fleet is based out of Bahrain.
largepeepee 4y ago
Not true. Besides 7th in Japan, there's 6th fleet is in Italy and 5th in Bahrain. So really half the US Navy is always stationed overseas with the first fleet being inactive.

smt88 4y ago

> China, which actually has a larger navy The US has a far more advanced navy (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) and many more aircraft carriers. Aircraft are extremely important in naval conflicts.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Yawn. China itself is the larger aircraft carrier. They also have advanced rocketry, which may render the other ones obsolete.
missedthecue 4y ago
China doesn't need aircraft carriers though. They aren't trying to fight wars 10,000km from home. They have hundreds of air bases in China.
- smt88 4y ago
  The US literally can't fight a war 10,000 km from "home" (a friendly country with military bases) because we have an enormous number of bases. Most importantly, we have tons of bases in Japan and South Korea[1]. 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    One task force out of Japan is probably insufficient against the entire PLAN
SkyMarshal 4y ago
> (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) If each one is armed with a few anti-ship missiles, a swarm attack from many different directions might be a real threat to a carrier group. You either waste a ton of ordinance taking them all out, or some portion are able to launch against you.
- defrost 4y ago
  There was a genuine video put up in the last three months and then pulled of a Chinese demonstration of a "swarm navy" deployable from an AI drone unmanned carrier mother craft. It's a serious threat as everything is low low cost and big on bang. The US would be looking at defending itself from 100+ unmanned cigar boats each packed with enough explosives to make a serious dent at water level and all interoperating like a flock of birds, some drawing fire while others push through.

baybal2 4y ago

[dead]

mlindner 4y ago

Most of the ships aren’t ocean going vessels. They’re coastal ships.

dirtyid 4y ago
PRC has more proper blue water surface and subsurface combatants than USN currently and has for years. Many of which more modern. Last years count of "ocean going" / blue water capable is like ~350 PLAN vs ~300 USN. PRC also has a fuckload of "coastal" ships, but at this point even Chinese coast guard has sizable blue water fleet (retired PLAN ships go there). US still has more displacement via super carriers, better subsurface and larger replenishment fleet to enable more persistent blue water ops. Incidentally PLA is rapidly building up replenishment capabilities, but ultimately most of fleet will stick around PRC shores, with some moving into IndoPac for SLOC security or Africa for anti piracy. But currenly PLAN has MORE "ocean going" vessels than USN, and gap is expected to widen to PLAN 400+ wheras USN ship building lucky to maintain 300 by end of decade.
- mlindner 4y ago
  If you build hundreds/thousands of boats with little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public then it's easy to claim large navy sizes. My previous comment was with respect to actual effectiveness. China has no significant blue water navy.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    > little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public Citation needed. This is borderline beyond "useful idiot" hot take because even DoD propaganda/analysis or defense wonks do not allege this, and they allege a lot of dumb shit with respect to PRC modernization. Western assesment of PLAN in last few years, with respect to blue water surface combatants, being commissioned at tremendous rates, is one branch where recent DoD writings / analysis has no substantial tech/hardware criticisms, relegating to, their hardware good but maybe software (training/jointness) lacking. Also to repeat "Many of which more modern". PLAN's blue water surface combatants built since 2010s are considered on par, if not superior with equivalent USN platforms in terms of systems and armaments, including latest flights. Certainly more than the significant portion of USN's aging hulls, many of which are not modernized to latest tech and are held together by duct tape / soon to retire. Like USN isn't going to have anything comparable to a type 55 for another 10+ years in DDG(X). It's hard to overstake the amount of USN program/procurement fuckups in the past decades and ongoing state of US ship building that enabled PRC to catch up in both quality and quantity. Majority of which concentrated in PRC backyard, on new hulls with better maintenance and readiness rates, that widens regional blue water naval power gap even further.

more_corn 4y ago

It’d come down to tech. The us probably has a leg up today. China being able to field new tech faster would pull ahead in a protracted conflict or one that starts in five or ten years.