CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blackstone]

Right before the start of the 20th century the British said the same about the Germans.

And guess what? Britain was right about Germany not achieving its naval aspirations. America stepped in and eclipsed them all. Do you suppose India could play China against the US, and then step in to dominate the India Ocean after they wear each other out?

 

[latenlazy]

And guess what? Britain was right about Germany not achieving its naval aspirations. America stepped in and eclipsed them all. Do you suppose India could play China against the US, and then step in to dominate the India Ocean after they wear each other out?

Was referring to technology generally. Substitute Germany for the US or Japan and you get the same point, but encompassing naval power.

 

[dingyibvs]

China's building what, 6 052D/055's concurrently right now? In just 15 years China's GDP and likely military budget will double, do you think the build rate will slow down? China may not ever have the LHDs and carriers that the U.S. has given the different operational needs, but catching up in overall strength by 2050 is a realistic goal, especially with the direction the two nations' shipbuilding industries are headed.

 

[Iron Man]

I think, the United States will not have the economical power to keep this fleet at a level of 11 carriers and same number of large flat deck LHA/Ds over the next 50 years.

This is just about right on. The US even now does NOT have the economical power to keep 11 carriers afloat and has to borrow against the blood, sweat, and tears of its future generations. My kids and grandkids will suffer immensely because of what the morons in Congress are doing now. If you live in the US, yours will too. If any of you are wishing that the US actually spent MORE on the military, you should look at your little ones obliviously playing right now, and think again.

 

[fatfreddy]

This is just about right on. The US even now does NOT have the economical power to keep 11 carriers afloat and has to borrow against the blood, sweat, and tears of its future generations. My kids and grandkids will suffer immensely because of what the morons in Congress are doing now. If you live in the US, yours will too. If any of you are wishing that the US actually spent MORE on the military, you should look at your little ones obliviously playing right now, and think again.

I have been wondering about that. US can't possibly keep the spending at this level. On the one hand, there is so much infighting to cut back spending on healthcare, education, social welfare and at the same time military spending is increasing. And in fact the military activities all over the world is not abating but increasing. Obviously something don't add up. I understand the argument that military spending is in fact an economy by itself and generating jobs. But like I said I am not comfortable with the mathematics.

 

[Jeff Head]

Right before the start of the 20th century the British said the same about the Germans.

No...the British were not syaing or thinking that.

They had a pacifist for a leader who claimed "Peace in out time!" after meeting with a tyrant.

But there were plenty who knew better, which is why immediately on the war starting, he becaome the head of government because there were so many who knew better.

China has not said anything about overcoming the US or being the "most poerful force on earth," or having the "most powerful navy."

As I said, I do not believe they are planng it...and the US is not slowing down in terms of its own naval building or technology development.

Right now, China seems to be planning aggressively to have about six carrier.

The US has 11, and is developing its other 11 LHD/LHA to be able to act as carriers.

The US has over 100 AEGIS class vessels...and is building more.

the Chinese do not plan (at least anywhere I have read or heard) to have over 100 Type 52Ds and Type 55s.

They simply do not need them.

But they will build more than enough of all of those combatants to give any nation (including the US) pause. And that will be enpough I believe.

Their biggest area of "catch up" if you will in terms of technology and capability is the nuclear powered attack submarines.

Anyhow...that was my point.

 

[Jeff Head]

I think, the United States will not have the economical power to keep this fleet at a level of 11 carriers and same number of large flat deck LHA/Ds over the next 50 years.

Well, the budgets are doing just that...and are planned to do so for the next 20 and more years.

Like I said, time will tell...and certainly economic downturns can impact anyone.

But one that really shuts the US down is also going to impact the other developed nations negatively too.

Anyhow, the US in fact is budgeting and planning to keep its force level where it is...in fact, biudgeting to grow it in numerous areas.

 

[latenlazy]

They had a pacifist for a leader who claimed "Peace in out time!" after meeting with a tyrant.

Wrong time period.

 

[delft]

They had a pacifist for a leader who claimed "Peace in out time!" after meeting with a tyrant.

That was the younger Chamberlain in 1938 and he was not a pacifist but an imperialist. UK had been rearming since the mid-30's but it was going slowly and he wanted to delay the war while not seeing that German rearmament was going even faster.

 

[dingyibvs]

No...the British were not syaing or thinking that.

They had a pacifist for a leader who claimed "Peace in out time!" after meeting with a tyrant.

But there were plenty who knew better, which is why immediately on the war starting, he becaome the head of government because there were so many who knew better.

China has not said anything about overcoming the US or being the "most poerful force on earth," or having the "most powerful navy."

As I said, I do not believe they are planng it...and the US is not slowing down in terms of its own naval building or technology development.

Right now, China seems to be planning aggressively to have about six carrier.

The US has 11, and is developing its other 11 LHD/LHA to be able to act as carriers.

The US has over 100 AEGIS class vessels...and is building more.

the Chinese do not plan (at least anywhere I have read or heard) to have over 100 Type 52Ds and Type 55s.

They simply do not need them.

But they will build more than enough of all of those combatants to give any nation (including the US) pause. And that will be enpough I believe.

Their biggest area of "catch up" if you will in terms of technology and capability is the nuclear powered attack submarines.

Anyhow...that was my point.

The US is budgeting to stay the same, while China is budgeting for explosive growth, and that's the difference. Think about where the PLAN was 30 years ago vis-a-vis the USN, and think about now, then project 30 more years into the future, and we're still 13 years away from 2060. China doesn't need 100 advanced destroyers? Says whom? It needs that many if the goal is to be stronger than the USN, and if you don't think that's China's goal then you're seriously underestimating China's ambition.

Frankly, statements like "they simply do not need them" is rather condescending. It implies that China should not aspire to a level of power that an existing nation already has, while the Chinese people are aspiring to a level of power that no nation has ever had. China is one of the greatest trading nation in the world throughout history, in current day, and likely will be in the future as well. It has as much if not more reason to have a strong navy as any power that's ever been, and in the future it'll aspire to be able to protect SLOC from the ECS to the Mediterranean, from the SCS to the Gulf of Mexico.

By no means am I saying that China will definitely accomplish all that, but whether it'll be able to will only be limited by capability and not by a lack of ambition and resolve.