CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[vesicles]

In the modern world It costs less to ship something by boat 10000 miles than to move it by land 200 miles.

The theory of latitude barrier and longitude pathway to migration and commerce does not apply in the Industrial Age.

It still does because it is about seasonal growth of crops. No matter how advanced, you still need to eat.

It is cheaper now to ship than train because of lack of infrastructures. Once the infrastructure is in place, it would be the opposite.

Time is money. On land, a train can carry hundreds of cargo carts and travel 60-100 mph and maybe even faster later. A cargo ship travels at most ~30 mph?

Even if shipping is always faster than train, European and Asian nations are much closer, which means faster shipping. On the other hand, the US is always 6000-8000 miles away from the nearest civilization no matter which direction it turns.

 

[Iron Man]

No. That's what the US can afford to spend if it were to keep taxation and other expenditure level close to what they are now.

As we have seen, a country with a serious perception of external danger, and are willing to adjust revenue and expenditure in other areas to suit, can sustain military expenditure equal to 25% of GDP, or about 5 times the current American defense spending, for at least several decades.

What is more, the geographic circumstances of the US allows it to devote a greater fraction of its military expenditure to mainly offensive commitments, because the US is unusually well protected against enemy offensive commitments by its unique geographic position. So that means the US has to spend less to keep a reciprocal level of pressure on an antogonist on the Euroasia mainland, then that antagonist has to spend to apply the pressure on the US.

No. The circumstances have changed, and you are still thinking WWII deficits and spending when the US is spent already. Last time the debt:GDP ratio was this high was at the peak of WWII with wartime spending and wartime rationing; the US also won WWII and had the benefits of the spoils of war and of Bretton Woods in particular, establishing it as the de facto world banker with all the benefits that accrued from that. Fast forward 7 decades. We are not currently in a war, yet the US deficit is already >100% GDP with BASELINE spending, and there are no signs it is going to go back down, ever. Unless it's the hard way down. The era of the King Dollar has already come to an end, and multiple countries have established and are establishing bilateral currency swaps that make the dollar totally irrelevant, multiple countries are buying oil in non-USD currencies, and multiple countries are accumulating more non-USD currencies as reserves in ever greater amounts. Just like rats deserting a sinking ship. When all this activity finally becomes a torrent, you will know the end is nigh.

As for "pressuring", an antagonist like China doesn't need to pressure the US mainland. The tyranny of distance wipes away any home field advantage that the US has. In fact China has to spend relatively less to fight a war in its near seas than the US has to spend to get there and stay there to fight with any degree of strength. To make things worse, the range of USN carriers has actually shrunk dramatically with the introduction of the F/A-18 series, to essentially half (or even worse) of the range of the aircraft they replaced like the Intruder, the Tomcat, and the Viking.

 

[Blackstone]

I think initially there will be a period of hostility fueled by American anxiety over the global implication of China's rise. But I suspect there is better than 50/50 chance the US will eventually come to an accommodation with a rising china when the US realizes the power of china is circumscribed by her unfavorable geographic and demographic circumstances, that China's challenge to the American global influence will remain regional even if china were to considerably exceed America in GDP, and American role as the premier power outside west pacific and east Asia region would not be overturned by china.

Pretty much agree, but I think you missed US's own demographic problems going forward. Kindly note this is for discussion only, and the racial overtone is purely academic.

Every recent poll I've seen shows Hispanics doubling its population from about 14% in 2005 to 30% in 2050. That's not remarkable in itself, as Hispanics are just like other immigrant groups that come to America for freedom and better opportunities. However, history show Hispanics were the poorest (sizable) segment of the American society, is today the poorest segment of the American society, and going forward will remain the poorest segment of the American society. In other words, America is importing lots of poverty and future trouble.

So once they get past the fact that their interests in the west pacific and east Asia are opposed, I suspect china and the US will come to see their interests in the broader world is not seriously in conflict. They can instead each help the other buttress the most critical aspects of each other' s global interests.

All signs point to the inability of US to maintain primacy in face of determined Chinese opposition, but no great power gives up easily, so the useless rancor will probably go on for another decade or more.

 

[Blackstone]

In the modern world It costs less to ship something by boat 10000 miles than to move it by land 200 miles.

The theory of latitude barrier and longitude pathway to migration and commerce does not apply in the Industrial Age.

Think of the logistics, young man, the logistics. Robert D. Kaplan (Imperial Grunts, Revenge of Geography, Asia's Cauldron, Monsoon, and more) witnessed a scene during the second Iraq war were endless convoys of army trucks flying down the road, loaded to the gills with supplies, just to support a single Army battalion of front line troops. Imagine the logistics to support enough naval and air assets to seriously fight China, on its doorsteps. Cost in blood and treasure of the Iraq wars would be pocket change in comparison.

 

[Yvrch]

No. That's what the US can afford to spend if it were to keep taxation and other expenditure level close to what they are now.

As we have seen, a country with a serious perception of external danger, and are willing to adjust revenue and expenditure in other areas to suit, can sustain military expenditure equal to 25% of GDP, or about 5 times the current American defense spending, for at least several decades.

What is more, the geographic circumstances of the US allows it to devote a greater fraction of its military expenditure to mainly offensive commitments, because the US is unusually well protected against enemy offensive commitments by its unique geographic position. So that means the US has to spend less to keep a reciprocal level of pressure on an antogonist on the Euroasia mainland, then that antagonist has to spend to apply the pressure on the US.

I don't say china could not match or surpass American global power. What I do say is, due to the uniquely advantageous geographic and demographic position of the United States, and the disadvantageous geographic and demographic circumstances of china, a china that is at economic and technological parity with the US is still not well placed to match American global power in the long run.

For china to match American global power, china needs to securely command economic resources well in excess of those of the United States, and do so for several decades. Even then, China's global power might be greater, but would be less secure, and china would have more to lose from a major setback than the US.

If American global power is for maintaining and furthering American interests, ie market capitalism and multi party elections, then the very existence of China's successful gradual economic rise wouldn't be flying in the face of the said American global power?
As China grows larger per capita wise, wouldn't that American global power ring hollower each passing year, no matter how many ships, planes, satellites, bases you have, no matter how many % or billions spent on MIC?
There seems to be a mismatch of symptoms and prescription, unless of course a nuclear war is in the card.

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, you wrote "The US has over 100 AEGIS class vessels...and is building more."

There's quite a difference between that and "The US will/may eventually have over 100 aegis class vessels"...


As for the Chinese Navy... we shall see. As dingyibvs and others have said, it's a matter of looking how requirements and growth may occur over multiple decades ahead rather than only a few years ahead.

No need to harp on it. I indicated that I misspoke.

Simple as that.

So, it was not really a nitpik that you did. You were right, and I do not mind admitting that it is currently 89 launched instead of 100.

If you inlcude the two Zumwalts that are now in the water (and I would even though they are not offically AEGIS) then its 91 very strong, very capable VLS with strong battle management vessels in the water.

Anyhow, whether it is 89, 91, or 100, my principle point still stands...the number for the US alone is a huge number and I am unaware of the Chinese ever indicating...or desiring for that matter...to match it with their own Type 52D and Type 55 vessels, which are their equivalents.

 

[Jeff Head]

Now 85 with the Zumwalt and all new 7 AB Fl IIA ( 11 in order + 3 Fl III ) + 2 Zumwalt in addition up to 2020 so 94 after normaly each year 1 Ticonderoga retired so each year +1 MSC eventualy + 2 if the bugdet is more big, AB have a service life of 35 years so no retired before 2025.

33 BMD all the AB Fl I/II : 28 + 5 Ticonderoga for others in service it is not planned a ABM modernisation only new build capable.

DDG-117 and DDG-116 were just recently launched (116 in April 2017).

So, from DDG-51 to DDG-117, that makes 67 of the Burkles in the water (not commissioned, but total launched).

67 + 22 Tocis equals 89 total Burkes and Ticos. Add the two Zumwalts (one commissioned and one launched and in the water) and you have 91 total US Destroyers and cruisers in the water.

Before any Ticos are retired, they will launch another Zumwalt and they will launch another eight or nine Burkes. Four are under construction now with their keels already having been laid.

So, the number will climb (when including the three Zumwalts) to either 100 or 101 actually. That's probably the reality...and will hold at that number for some time.

 

[Blitzo]

No need t keep harping on it. I indicated that I misspoke.

Simple as that.

So, it was not really a nitpik that you did. You were right, and I do not mind admitting that it is currently 89 launched instead of 100.

If you inlcude the two Zumwalts that are now in the water (and I would even though they are not offically AEGIS) then its 91 very strong, very capable VLS with strong battle management vessels in the water.

Oh okay, sorry I didn't see that before... most of that post seemed to be about how the USN would eventually have 100 or more aegis vessels, so I missed the part where you acknowledged the USN doesn't currently have that many aegis ships.

Anyhow, whether it is 89, 91, or 100, my principle point still stands...the number for the US alone is a huge number and I am unaware of the Chinese ever indicating...or desiring for that matter...to match it with their own Type 52D and Type 55 vessels, which are their equivalents.

Well, the Chinese Navy doesn't give us any indication about what their future orbat plans are, so the argument is not really valid.
They might be planning for 100 052D and 055 pattern vessels by 2040 or they might be planning for 50 or only 30, either way we wouldn't know -- so saying that the Chinese never "indicating or desiring" XYZ number of vessels as a reason for thinking 100 such ships (or however many) are unlikely, is not very logical.

 

[Jeff Head]

Oh okay, sorry I didn't see that before... most of that post seemed to be about how the USN would eventually have 100 or more aegis vessels, so I missed the part where you acknowledged the USN doesn't currently have that many aegis ships.





Well, the Chinese Navy doesn't give us any indication about what their future orbat plans are, so the argument is not really valid.
They might be planning for 100 052D and 055 pattern vessels by 2040 or they might be planning for 50 or only 30, either way we wouldn't know -- so saying that the Chinese never "indicating or desiring" XYZ number of vessels as a reason for thinking 100 such ships (or however many) are unlikely, is not very logical.

I think we both know that the Chinese are not planning on 100 Type 052D...or even Type 055 and Type 052D together. There has never been a peep about that.

Most expect 18-24 Type 052Ds and 12-18 Type 055s at a max.

They would be doing a lot more than we both think if they built 50 of them together

But time will tell.

 

[Blitzo]

I think we both know that the Chinese are not planning on 100 Type 052D...or even Type 055 and Type 052D together. There has never been a peep about that.

Most expect 18-24 Type 052Ds and 12-18 Type 055s at a max.

They would be doing a lot more than we both think if they built 50 of them together

But time will tell.

Well, time is kind of the issue isn't it?

Between now and the mid to late 2020s I definitely don't think they'll build 100. But by the late 2030s, early 2040s? Well that's far enough into the future where it's hard to predict, but with the kind of trajectory that we are seeing out of China economically, technologically and geopolitically it would be rather foolish to rule out something like a large number of high end surface combatants like what you described.