Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
tidalwave said:
I read a number of US military articles that pointed out US carriers forces are not optimal against China in South China Sea, it ace weapon is its submarines forces, and F35B from amphibious forces, plus B1 lancer carrying LRSAM against China naval ships. Current situation is very dangerous for China. It's J11B and even SU35 can't handle the F35B in South China Sea.

There won't be carriers for DF21D, DF26 to shoot at.
Click to expand...

If the mere existence of carrier killers means that carriers will not come within sortie range, then they have fulfilled one of their purposes. U.S. sortie rates for fighters and bombers will be radically reduced, which tips the scales in favor of China.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
In the current situation, the CCP has likely evaluated this to be the healthy level of spending. Spending more to increase capability might be facing severe diminishing returns due to time needed to spend the money well. I'm fine with this current level this year because I couldn't possibly argue with the decision that the CCP has made with the level of information made available to them, but it is growing every year and I'm saying it should be as well. Certainly, there should not be any reduction. And also, you don't necessarily adjust your spending to your opponent's spending; you adjust it to the capability you can likely buy with it and your ability to afford them. That is how you end up overtaking someone in capability, not by always adjusting your spending to their spending to be perpetual number 2.

Although the physical weapons themselves don't necessarily roll over (yet sometimes, they do), the critical roll-over I'm talking about is design sophistication and experience in manufacturing/developing modern weapons.

Please reread my post that you quoted. I edited in more information about deterrence there.
Click to expand...
Then we are in agreement.

Invest in economy to fuel up the war machine when we really need it.

Maintain minimum deterance but spend enough to keep design up to date.

Mass produce such design when tension mounts or when you want to expand your influence when it is worth the cost (SCS, Taiwan)

I am advocating for a flexible plan like this. Best not to overcommit until you reach the need for it. You could argue that the time is now that we need it. I am open to hear why that is the case. Maybe trade war will turn into military war as you may be suggesting?
 
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
CMP said:
If the mere existence of carrier killers means that carriers will not come within sortie range, then they have fulfilled one of their purposes. U.S. sortie rates for fighters and bombers will be radically reduced, which tips the scales in favor of China.
Click to expand...

B1 doesn't use carrier. It can launch from Philippines. Same with F35B.
Also have to deal USN subs.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
tidalwave said:
I read a number of US military articles that pointed out US carriers forces are not optimal against China in South China Sea, it ace weapon is its submarines forces, and F35B from amphibious forces, plus B1 lancer carrying LRSAM against China naval ships. Current situation is very dangerous for China. It's J11B and even SU35 can't handle the F35B in South China Sea.

There won't be carriers for DF21D, DF26 to shoot at.
Click to expand...
Well, B-1s are not stealthy and the America and Wasp class that F-35 can launch from are both 844 ft compared to 1,100 feet of the Ford so I don't know if that would preclude them from being targets for the DF21D/26. They are almost the size of India's full sized carrier.

If they launch from nearby bases, crater those bases because they are involved in attacking China.

TK3600 said:
Then we are in agreement.

Invest in economy to fuel up the war machine when we really need it.

Maintain minimum deterance but spend enough to keep design up to date.

Mass produce such design when tension mounts or when you want to expand your influence when it is worth the cost (SCS, Taiwan)

I am advocating for a flexible plan like this. Best not to overcommit until you reach the need for it. You could argue that the time is now that we need it. I am open to hear why that is the case. Maybe trade war will turn into military war as you may be suggesting?
Click to expand...
I guess close enough? But I must emphasize that it is very dangerous to dally on minimal deterrence. If you walk near the edge, you always risk falling off. Plus, if you only start ramping up production when it becomes apparent that you will need large numbers of something, it is likely too late. China is not going to be minimally deterrent forever; we need to make investments now moving in the direction of eventually being outright stronger than the US. So defense spending will need to be mostly determined by where China is in defense research. If the funding is saturated with the bottleneck being working time, then off course there is no need to invest even more money than that. But if there are important areas that require spending to get moving, or extra spending would bring significant benefit, then China certainly cannot afford to skimp. Up-to-date is an odd thing to be satisfied with. China certainly aims to world-beating and more in every design but once again, spending will depend on the state of the research and its current bottlenecks in getting there, not on whether or not something is "good enough" or "up to date" to stop or slow further research on it.
 
Last edited:
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
@manqiangrexue, what do you think should be done with the J-20? Ramp up airframe production now with inferior engines or wait until the WS-15 is ready (or at least looks imminent) before really ramping up production?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top