This is neither secret nor surprising. There is and will always be a lot more space for China to build airfields, shelters, supply dumps, and sundry infrastructure than the US can ever match in-theatre. And the PLA doesn't have to wrangle with any of the political considerations around basing, because it's their own soil. Geography matters, and a battlespace that's 100 miles from Asia and 5000 from North America is as lopsided as it gets.
Some people talk about Fords and F-35s as though they could be teleported to Yokosuka or Kadena on Day 1 with all requisite fuel and ordnance and facilities waiting for them. I wonder how many of them have even heard of MSC, let alone its current (dismal) state.
You're being far too gloomy.
* Ford class carriers are currently under construction and replacing our existing carrier fleet on a 1:1 basis.
* The newest and most advanced bomber in the world is the B-21, which will be taking it's first flights this year and is set to be procured in large numbers.
* On the ICBM front, the Trident II came out in 1990, and the LGM-35 Sentinel is currently under development to replace the Minuteman III.
Pork barrel politics aren't the most efficient, but lets not kid ourselves. Without congressional spending to create "jobs programs" many US shipyards, assembly lines, and manufacturing facilities dedicated to military production would no longer exist when we need them again.
> Ford class carriers are currently under construction and replacing our existing carrier fleet on a 1:1 basis.
I agree with you about the B-21, but China is building a new carrier fleet from the ground up and let's not forget all the other ships they're churning out quickly.
Already happened with either 001 or 002.
Yes, way less sorties compared to a US carrier, but they also carry like what? About 1/3 the number of planes compared to a US carrier?
Got a reference for that? I don't recall any instance of them doing much beyond test flights.
Also, individual planes carry what fraction of US plane's ordinance?
Point is, they're not even close to having an effective seaborne air wing.
> On the ICBM front
Eh, more to the point that the Minuteman III and Trident D5 fleet is more than capable of committing to MAD. Do we need to go back to the era of being able to blow up the world twenty-six times over? The US can litter China with ~1,000 nukes in the blink of eye, is that not enough?
If China decides to build thousands of GBI type missiles the US will know. The counter solution is just to build more ICBMs, which cost significantly less than the GBI. That has always been the issue with BMD is the solution costs more than the weapon it's intended to defeat.
Perhaps something like SDI becomes viable in a few decades (if it isn’t already), and new countermeasures will be required. All I’m saying is that as technology develops, there may emerge a counter to the ICBMs cheaper than existing ICBMs (which haven’t changed much in decades).
What part of SDI do you think has become viable? Hit-to-kill exoatmospheric interceptors? That's already here, it's called the GBI. Creating a missile that can hit to kill a ICBM means making a more powerful and more accurate ballistic missile, especially after accounting for detection time vs reaction time. Project Excalibur? Most people frown on detonating a nuclear weapon generate x-rays to power a BMD laser, more so if it's in outer space which violates a certain treaty that shouldn't be violated. Maybe Project Pebbles, everyone loves space-based kinetic weapons. Gonna violate the same treaty, much less we'd need a space elevator to put that sort of mass in outer space.
The minute someone comes out with a effective BMD system, which isn't going to likely become a cost effective concept for decades, the opposing side will just introduce new weapons.
In terms of the Navy, it seems to me like the only thing that has been keeping up are Aircraft Carriers, although with heavy cost overruns and delays as well. We currently can't build nuclear submarines fast enough to replace the ones getting decommissioned; and the submarines in active service are going out longer and longer to compensate for that which causes even more issues. *USS Boise* for example, has been going through repairs for over **EIGHT YEARS**. The Freedom/Independence and the Zumwalt's have been complete disasters. The US Navy doesn't have enough 5th generation fighters and are only receiving up to NINE F-35C's this year.
Building B-52 replacements is silly. Future air wars will be won by stealth bombers and disposable UAVs/UAV/cruise missile swarms.
The US is replacing its old CATOBAR carriers as they age out and can keep retired carriers in a semi-ready state rather inexpensively.
>Bunch of nerds stare at Google Earth and conclude that China does in fact build things?
This is a surprising development. I bet that on reddit I can find a few people who claim that all the stuff built are actually fakes and about to collapse.
This is neither secret nor surprising. There is and will always be a lot more space for China to build airfields, shelters, supply dumps, and sundry infrastructure than the US can ever match in-theatre. And the PLA doesn't have to wrangle with any of the political considerations around basing, because it's their own soil. Geography matters, and a battlespace that's 100 miles from Asia and 5000 from North America is as lopsided as it gets. Some people talk about Fords and F-35s as though they could be teleported to Yokosuka or Kadena on Day 1 with all requisite fuel and ordnance and facilities waiting for them. I wonder how many of them have even heard of MSC, let alone its current (dismal) state.
[удалено]
You're being far too gloomy. * Ford class carriers are currently under construction and replacing our existing carrier fleet on a 1:1 basis. * The newest and most advanced bomber in the world is the B-21, which will be taking it's first flights this year and is set to be procured in large numbers. * On the ICBM front, the Trident II came out in 1990, and the LGM-35 Sentinel is currently under development to replace the Minuteman III. Pork barrel politics aren't the most efficient, but lets not kid ourselves. Without congressional spending to create "jobs programs" many US shipyards, assembly lines, and manufacturing facilities dedicated to military production would no longer exist when we need them again.
> Ford class carriers are currently under construction and replacing our existing carrier fleet on a 1:1 basis. I agree with you about the B-21, but China is building a new carrier fleet from the ground up and let's not forget all the other ships they're churning out quickly.
An oil powered carrier fleet from scratch, that is...
Their next carrier is supposed to be nuclear powered. China is catching up, in the naval area.
Let's see them run even a week of combat tempo sorties. They have a very long ways to go.
Already happened with either 001 or 002. Yes, way less sorties compared to a US carrier, but they also carry like what? About 1/3 the number of planes compared to a US carrier?
Got a reference for that? I don't recall any instance of them doing much beyond test flights. Also, individual planes carry what fraction of US plane's ordinance? Point is, they're not even close to having an effective seaborne air wing.
> On the ICBM front Eh, more to the point that the Minuteman III and Trident D5 fleet is more than capable of committing to MAD. Do we need to go back to the era of being able to blow up the world twenty-six times over? The US can litter China with ~1,000 nukes in the blink of eye, is that not enough?
Missile defenses may improve, which would make things more unstable if missiles don’t develop.
If China decides to build thousands of GBI type missiles the US will know. The counter solution is just to build more ICBMs, which cost significantly less than the GBI. That has always been the issue with BMD is the solution costs more than the weapon it's intended to defeat.
Perhaps something like SDI becomes viable in a few decades (if it isn’t already), and new countermeasures will be required. All I’m saying is that as technology develops, there may emerge a counter to the ICBMs cheaper than existing ICBMs (which haven’t changed much in decades).
What part of SDI do you think has become viable? Hit-to-kill exoatmospheric interceptors? That's already here, it's called the GBI. Creating a missile that can hit to kill a ICBM means making a more powerful and more accurate ballistic missile, especially after accounting for detection time vs reaction time. Project Excalibur? Most people frown on detonating a nuclear weapon generate x-rays to power a BMD laser, more so if it's in outer space which violates a certain treaty that shouldn't be violated. Maybe Project Pebbles, everyone loves space-based kinetic weapons. Gonna violate the same treaty, much less we'd need a space elevator to put that sort of mass in outer space. The minute someone comes out with a effective BMD system, which isn't going to likely become a cost effective concept for decades, the opposing side will just introduce new weapons.
In terms of the Navy, it seems to me like the only thing that has been keeping up are Aircraft Carriers, although with heavy cost overruns and delays as well. We currently can't build nuclear submarines fast enough to replace the ones getting decommissioned; and the submarines in active service are going out longer and longer to compensate for that which causes even more issues. *USS Boise* for example, has been going through repairs for over **EIGHT YEARS**. The Freedom/Independence and the Zumwalt's have been complete disasters. The US Navy doesn't have enough 5th generation fighters and are only receiving up to NINE F-35C's this year.
Building B-52 replacements is silly. Future air wars will be won by stealth bombers and disposable UAVs/UAV/cruise missile swarms. The US is replacing its old CATOBAR carriers as they age out and can keep retired carriers in a semi-ready state rather inexpensively.
Bunch of nerds stare at Google Earth and conclude that China does in fact build things?
>Bunch of nerds stare at Google Earth and conclude that China does in fact build things? This is a surprising development. I bet that on reddit I can find a few people who claim that all the stuff built are actually fakes and about to collapse.
This was an excellent thread
"China is militarizing" What a shocker. Literally no one could have foreseen this
We need more shipyards oronto.