Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?"

Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

MakeeLearn -> Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/11/2018 4:35:24 PM)
"If You Still Don't Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat, Watch This Video" "But if things continue to go as they are, and with a catapult equipped Chinese aircraft carrier, and possibly a nuclear one as well, on the horizon, the days of America's outright supremacy on and below the high-seas may be coming to an end. " A recently published video, http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21602/if-you-still-dont-think-chinas-navy-is-a-serious-threat-watch-this-video [image]local://upfiles/55056/26A961B1431647509D94B1C84564110D.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/11/2018 5:06:04 PM)
"But if things continue to go as they are, and with a catapult equipped Chinese aircraft carrier, and possibly a nuclear one as well, on the horizon, the days of America's outright supremacy on and below the high-seas may be coming to an end. " No, not even close.

durnedwolf -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/12/2018 12:38:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna No, not even close. yup - what he said.

U235 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/12/2018 1:33:34 AM)
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.

Rusty1961 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/12/2018 3:28:28 AM)
Carriers are probably obsolete in a real hot war, not in some regional conflict where the US has almost zero opposition. The problem is is that the US Force Projection is predicated on CVN battle groups. The new technologies deployed by China and Russia probably would sink most if not all of our CVNs in the first day if they engaged in the first strike. 73 years for the CV was a good run, but submarine technology (AIP), mines, drones, hypersonic weapons, etc., pretty much spell the doom of the big ship.

Yaab -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/12/2018 4:26:19 AM)
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...

Lokasenna -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 5:06:50 PM)
quote: 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]

Lokasenna -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 5:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 The problem is is that the US Force Projection is predicated on CVN battle groups. The new technologies deployed by China and Russia probably would sink most if not all of our CVNs in the first day if they engaged in the first strike. Citation needed. Anybody can say "probably." It's one of the BS artist's favorite words. Show us some studies to back up that claim.

Rusty1961 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 9:12:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 The problem is is that the US Force Projection is predicated on CVN battle groups. The new technologies deployed by China and Russia probably would sink most if not all of our CVNs in the first day if they engaged in the first strike. Citation needed. Anybody can say "probably." It's one of the BS artist's favorite words. Show us some studies to back up that claim. My own hypothesis based upon historical trends and current technologies. Wouldn't really know "for sure" until a real shooting war broke out and I doubt we'd see that in our lifetime. If you need insights to my hypothesis Google has lots of articles on Hypersonic weapons vs. CVNs or Submarines vs. CVNs. Ditto with drone technology.

rustysi -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 9:40:30 PM)
quote: Wouldn't really know "for sure" until a real shooting war broke out and I doubt we'd see that in our lifetime. Really? I've no doubt its just around the corner.[:(]

BBfanboy -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 10:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Wouldn't really know "for sure" until a real shooting war broke out and I doubt we'd see that in our lifetime. Really? I've no doubt its just around the corner.[:(] Maybe in twenty years or so, when the only things worth fighting for are fresh water and food ... and that will be scarce. We need to figure out how to turn the extra climate heat into something we need, like electricity, so we can actually power all the electric cars we are supposed to have. Prognostication off! [8\|]

Will_L -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/13/2018 10:46:29 PM)
I recall that they tried to build a 747 copy without the plans forty some odd years ago, the engines weren't powerful enough to get if off the ground so it could only putter around on the runway.

fodder -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 10:02:31 AM)
nope!

USSAmerica -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 1:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fodder nope! [sm=happy0065.gif][sm=00000436.gif]

Chickenboy -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 7:26:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 If you need insights to my hypothesis Google has lots of articles on Hypersonic weapons vs. CVNs or Submarines vs. CVNs. Ditto with drone technology. So your 'insights' into your hypotheses are all based on Google articles? Hardly compelling provenance. I can find damn near any Google 'article' promoting any technology as a war-winning uber-weapon that I wish to find. Rusty1961, you're an infrequent poster here-so let me give you some friendly advice about this forum. This forum is littered with some of the most knowledgeable people that I know about military matters, particularly naval operations. Many have served in submarines, surface ships and naval aviation in NATO (and non-NATO) forces around the globe. Your tone is coming off as very 'high-minded' and opinionated without the benefit of personal experience or primary research to back your point of view. Suggesting that others check Google for why the USN will lose out to the PRCN based upon untested and unproven technologies that may never get off the ground is an example. A friendly suggestion would be to listen more and argue (with poor references) less. It would go a long way to having people listen to your point of view.

mind_messing -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 7:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 If you need insights to my hypothesis Google has lots of articles on Hypersonic weapons vs. CVNs or Submarines vs. CVNs. Ditto with drone technology. So your 'insights' into your hypotheses are all based on Google articles? Hardly compelling provenance. I can find damn near any Google 'article' promoting any technology as a war-winning uber-weapon that I wish to find. Rusty1961, you're an infrequent poster here-so let me give you some friendly advice about this forum. This forum is littered with some of the most knowledgeable people that I know about military matters, particularly naval operations. Many have served in submarines, surface ships and naval aviation in NATO (and non-NATO) forces around the globe. Your tone is coming off as very 'high-minded' and opinionated without the benefit of personal experience or primary research to back your point of view. Suggesting that others check Google for why the USN will lose out to the PRCN based upon untested and unproven technologies that may never get off the ground is an example. A friendly suggestion would be to listen more and argue (with poor references) less. It would go a long way to having people listen to your point of view. That one does cut both ways. A lot of the people that fall under that catagory spent their days preparing to halting the Great Soviet Roadtrip to Paris. It's worth noting that while most of the relevant areas haven't changed, some (very important) things have. quote: quote: 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. When was the last time the USN had a modern maritime experience? Vietnam? Iran? Even then, those conflicts don't really add up to a modern maritime experience in the slightest - brown water conflicts against second tier naval powers.

Rusty1961 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 If you need insights to my hypothesis Google has lots of articles on Hypersonic weapons vs. CVNs or Submarines vs. CVNs. Ditto with drone technology. So your 'insights' into your hypotheses are all based on Google articles? Hardly compelling provenance. I can find damn near any Google 'article' promoting any technology as a war-winning uber-weapon that I wish to find. Rusty1961, you're an infrequent poster here-so let me give you some friendly advice about this forum. This forum is littered with some of the most knowledgeable people that I know about military matters, particularly naval operations. Many have served in submarines, surface ships and naval aviation in NATO (and non-NATO) forces around the globe. Your tone is coming off as very 'high-minded' and opinionated without the benefit of personal experience or primary research to back your point of view. Suggesting that others check Google for why the USN will lose out to the PRCN based upon untested and unproven technologies that may never get off the ground is an example. A friendly suggestion would be to listen more and argue (with poor references) less. It would go a long way to having people listen to your point of view. Thank you for your sagacity, but I remember all the "Know it alls" in the military back in 2001 telling me how we'd be done with Afghanistan in a year when I was saying we'd never win. Sorry, sometimes it takes an outsider to see a problem, not an insider.

AW1Steve -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Rusty1961 If you need insights to my hypothesis Google has lots of articles on Hypersonic weapons vs. CVNs or Submarines vs. CVNs. Ditto with drone technology. So your 'insights' into your hypotheses are all based on Google articles? Hardly compelling provenance. I can find damn near any Google 'article' promoting any technology as a war-winning uber-weapon that I wish to find. Rusty1961, you're an infrequent poster here-so let me give you some friendly advice about this forum. This forum is littered with some of the most knowledgeable people that I know about military matters, particularly naval operations. Many have served in submarines, surface ships and naval aviation in NATO (and non-NATO) forces around the globe. Your tone is coming off as very 'high-minded' and opinionated without the benefit of personal experience or primary research to back your point of view. Suggesting that others check Google for why the USN will lose out to the PRCN based upon untested and unproven technologies that may never get off the ground is an example. A friendly suggestion would be to listen more and argue (with poor references) less. It would go a long way to having people listen to your point of view. That one does cut both ways. A lot of the people that fall under that catagory spent their days preparing to halting the Great Soviet Roadtrip to Paris. It's worth noting that while most of the relevant areas haven't changed, some (very important) things have. quote: quote: 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. When was the last time the USN had a modern maritime experience? Vietnam? Iran? Even then, those conflicts don't really add up to a modern maritime experience in the slightest - brown water conflicts against second tier naval powers. There was a little "modern Maritime experience" from 1948 to 1991 called "The Cold War". Perhaps you have heard of it? Many of us here were part of it. Just because your city didn't get nuked doesn't mean it wasn't a real war. Many of us lost friends and family in it. I was in it from 1975 till 1991 , and just about every member of my family served in it. Plenty of others who frequent this forum also can make the same claim. BTW your right , and wrong about tonnage. Tonnage doesn't have a thing to do with sinking something , but has everything to do with endurance. And to be able to take hits and continue punching back. That hasn't changed. I've I can I give you a bit of advice....be very, very careful how you respond. Bad mouthing "Cold war warriors" will not make you very popular with such folks. They pledge everything they had, including their lives , for their cause. They probably won't appreciate or respond well to you or anyone else replying in a way that they might find demeaning. Just saying.

mind_messing -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:32:31 PM)
quote: There was a little "modern Maritime experience" from 1948 to 1991 called "The Cold War". Perhaps you have heard of it? Many of us here were part of it. Just because your city didn't get nuked doesn't mean it wasn't a real war. Many of us lost friends and family in it. I was in it from 1975 till 1991 , and just about every member of my family served in it. Plenty of others who frequent this forum also can make the same claim. That one isn't far off thirty years in the past - long enough ago that the experience gained will be retiring out. In any case, the Chinese should be only a slight bit behind then, having been engaged in their own regional Cold War with Taiwan and to a lesser extent thier other regional neighbours. Just because it didn't turn in to a shooting war doesn't mean it wasn't a real war, right? quote: I've I can I give you a bit of advice....be very, very careful how you respond. Bad mouthing "Cold war warriors" will not make you very popular with such folks. They pledge everything they had, including their lives , for their cause. They probably won't appreciate or respond well to you or anyone else replying in a way that they might find demeaning. Just saying. It was not my intention to do so, merely to point out that things have changed with time passing, and that the experiences of denizens of this forum, in some respects, may not be as relevant today as they once were. I don't think you can take too much umbrage to that...

Lokasenna -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:43:07 PM)
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.

Amoral -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:47:22 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 8:53:27 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 10:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 10:14:49 PM)
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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/14/2018 11:13:05 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/15/2018 12:51:29 AM)
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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/15/2018 12:53:33 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/15/2018 1:12:25 AM)
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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/15/2018 1:20:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: 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. quote: 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 -> RE: Think China's Navy Is A Serious Threat?" (8/15/2018 7:13:05 PM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375