Miscellaneous News

[manqiangrexue]

It is way cheaper to maintain a conventional carrier than a nuclear one. Type 003 is also a vast overmatch against Japanese and South Korean carriers.

So what? That's where we're at? Competing against Japan and SK? Or are we going up against 5 US carriers in the region? Note the original post I was responding to.

 

[gelgoog]

Not all US carriers are nuclear ones. And the idea that there always needs to be a symmetric response to every single weapon system is a flawed one.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

So what? That's where we're at? Competing against Japan and SK? Or are we going up against 5 US carriers in the region? Note the original post I was responding to.

The point of a carrier is more political than military especially if you don't need to project power in a peer conflict.

There is also value in time. Better to have something now to intimidate with, get concessions/deter with it, and not need to use it, than to wait, not be intimidating enough, and lose even more value in either losing political concessions or inviting war by looking weak.

 

[siegecrossbow]

LMFAO!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[manqiangrexue]

Not all US carriers are nuclear ones. And the idea that there always needs to be a symmetric response to every single weapon system is a flawed one.

Aside from the nuclear bit, which I said nothing about, this is exactly correct. No need to panic build to meet 5 US carriers with 5 carriers. Build at our own speed, build ones that we have tested and are satisified with, and until we surpass them, use our ASMB fleet if threatened with their carriers.

The point of a carrier is more political than military especially if you don't need to project power in a peer conflict.

There is also value in time. Better to have something now to intimidate with, get concessions/deter with it, and not need to use it, than to wait, not be intimidating enough, and lose even more value in either losing political concessions or inviting war by looking weak.

We have something now, it's more than every country than the US. I don't understand your point; are you saying that China should have rushed to build more carriers of the current designs without fully testing and improving in order to meet America's planned 5? That's the original argument I was against.

 

[Phead128]

This is the reason why China should have built more CVs, rather than just testing and evaluating their CVs before making more.

Are you rushed to go to war?

China spends only 1.7% of GDP on defense, it does not want nor forsee a war anytime soon.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Are you rushed to go to war?

China spends only 1.7% of GDP on defense, it does not want nor forsee a war anytime soon.

Not only is he rushed to go to war, he doesn't wanna win it assymetrically by taking out US carriers with ASBMs; he wants to win it by carrier-vs-carrier slug out Midway style to make it a point that we're better in every way! LOLOL

 

[gelgoog]

If there is one thing you should learn from all the wars in the XXth century is that the country that does its military buildup last always wins. The trick is doing the buildup in time before the war actually starts though.

 

[GZDRefugee]

Are you rushed to go to war?

China spends only 1.7% of GDP on defense, it does not want nor forsee a war anytime soon.

Isn't it more likely for a hot war now rather than later? As China closes the gap in military with the US each day, wouldn't it be in their best interest to fight when they are advantaged?

 

[gelgoog]

China needs to spend enough on defense. Otherwise the same thing will happen as in late Qing.
Of course it makes no sense to spend the horrendous amounts the US does to maintain its global empire.