China Chinese Navy Growth: Massive Expansion Of Important Shipyard

[Gary]

US lost every single mock war game against China in recent years,

The more correct term is, the US team lost against another US team playing as China , those war games you saw are all performed by active member of the US armed forces, not a single Chinese officers and staff take part in those exercise. That means China cant and wont emulate the very moves that happened in those exercise nor could it take the trophy from any "Chinese" win in those war games.

And all exercise are rigged, just so you know.

 

[xizhimen]

The more correct term is, the US team lost against another US team playing as China , those war games you saw are all performed by active member of the US armed forces, not a single Chinese officers and staff take part in those exercise. That means China cant and wont emulate the very moves that happened in those exercise nor could it take the trophy from any "Chinese" win in those war games.

And all exercise are rigged, just so you know.

This is why I said 60%, not 100%, I don't see many US losts in other simulated war games against other countries, so there is still some truth in them.

 

[Gary]

This is why I said 60%, not 100%, I don't see many US losts in other simulated war games against other countries, so there is still some truth in them.

60% if those Chinese PLAN ships and aircraft are manned by US sailors and airmen, without US sailors it would dropped god knows how much.

and US airmen and sailors aren't selling themselves to the PLA.

 

[xizhimen]

60% if those Chinese PLAN ships and aircraft are manned by US sailors and airmen, without US sailors it would dropped god knows how much.

and US airmen and sailors aren't selling themselves to the PLA.

True , they are just war games, could never be 100% accurate, but since the two countries refuse to fight a real war, those are the best we can come by so far. Unless they fight a rea war, otherwise all different opinions are just personal guesses based on personal preferences.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Yes they do, 12 carriers with 800+ jets on top of it, bombers flying all the way from CONUS, fighter jets from Okinawa, South Korea etc. and if PRC attacks those bases the US fly from, those country automatically enters the war.

They do not have 12 carriers available at any given point. Check out how many are in rotation - meaning minus those being maintained and other needed in e.g Middle-east and Mediterranean.
Taking China's considerable head-start presently in regards to hyper-sonic-missles (they have far more the just a dozen) I would be surprised if the USA could even get a single carrier with a 1000km range of China. (not even to mention CN subs) And the US carrier based aircrafts have no effect from a 1000km range.

if the US territory of Guam is attacked, article V of NATO will be activated, we're talking Germany sending their Typhoons, UK sending their QE2 and F-35s, France sending their De Gaulle CSG etc...

Places like Guam or e.g. Falklands or France Fiji are not included in NATO alliance issues - and Germany even if they wanted to, couldn't even get 30 Euro-fighters to fly.

Desert Storm called in a grand coalition of 30+ countries against a singular Iraq, I don't think anyone ever would call the US doesn't have aerial dominance towards Iraq.

Yes - exactly, even against a total underdog they needed an alliance (proxy's ) to support them, or as happened later to get $ billions from them to pay for their war against Iraq. And they even had to attack twice, because since 1945, they have never been able to actually defeat and occupy enemy territory successfully. Even now Iraq again has become a potential enemy for them.

 

[Lordimperator]

And all exercise are rigged, just so you know.

Yep,
sorry little bit off topic, remember when Poland made wargames against Russia and their military only survive for 7 days, while now in reality Russian cant decimated Ukraine even 100+ days

 

[Gary]

They do not have 12 carriers available at any given point. Check out how many are in rotation - meaning minus those being maintained and other needed in e.g Middle-east and Mediterranean.

1. In war and an emergency, there's always the option to surge op tempo, this is nothing new. Even if lets say they could only deploy half, that's more than enough.
2. I don't see anyone messing with the US in the Med or the ME, other than maybe Iran which is at best an annoyance, or the Russian fleet in Tartous, Syria which is also an annoyance
3. Article V is still valid

Taking China's considerable head-start presently in regards to hyper-sonic-missles (they have far more the just a dozen) I would be surprised if the USA could even get a single carrier with a 1000km range of China.

I have already explain multiple times why the hypersonic hype should not be taken out of proportion, the main issue is targetting. You can read my opinion here

Can US carriers survive an all-out attack from China?

Can US carriers survive an all-out attack from China? The PLA can now use DF-21Ds to “attack ships, including aircraft carriers,” more than nine hundred miles away By DAVE MAKICHUK NOVEMBER 5, 2021 Can high-tech lasers, improved missiles, better radar and improved networking better protect US...

defencehub.live

Carriers are just one tools, China would be facing an attack from multiple directions and platforms, we're talking carrier based aviation, US own hypersonic missile, strat bombers flying from CONUS, US frontline aviation in Japan/Korea, cruise missile strike from US SSGN lurking somewhere near China, cruise missile strike from US destroyers all in one go and in a cooperative manner.

Just so you know China's principle long range aviation bombers the H-6N are actually closer to the P-8, China has not yet produce heavy hitting bombers like the B-52 or B-1 nor it had produced stealth bombers like the B-2.

A single B-1 could carry as much as 24 JASSM cruise missile in its internal belly alone, a flight of 8 divided in two four ship flight would throw 192 cruise missile at you before R2B to Alaska to refuel, re-arm and fly again doing the same thing, I don't think people appreciate just how much and how fast the US could deliver those firepower on target and in time. There are 45 B-1s in total.

B-1B Flies Dark Close To Russia, Over Kurils; China Announces Defense Budget - Breaking Defense

"This B-1 left from home base, got a great training mission, and showed its capability for a 29-hour round-trip into the super-busy airspace around Japan where Chinese and Russian fighters routinely buzz the borders."

breakingdefense.com

On the naval front. Have you seen the disparity on US v China overall firepower ?

Asia Pacific Naval Balance 2021

Compiling Asia Pacific naval balance BIG 7 Fleet count (active/commissioned) Country/Type USA People's Republic of China Japan Taiwan Australia Republic of Korea Canada CVN 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 LHA/LHD 9 3 2 0 2 2 0 LPD 11 8 3 2 1 0 0...

defencehub.live

overall situation in the Pacific really doesn't favor China to do a military adventure at all.

(not even to mention CN subs) And the US carrier based aircrafts have no effect from a 1000km range.

1. What with CN subs ? Do they have anything close to a Seawolf or Virginia ?
2. If the CN subs are not hunted by US submarines tailing them, they would fall prey to the Poseidons
3. Standoff munitions like the JASSM meant that fighter jets wont have to be close to a particular object of interest .ie target.

Places like Guam or e.g. Falklands or France Fiji are not included in NATO alliance issues - and Germany even if they wanted to, couldn't even get 30 Euro-fighters to fly.

Article V stress that an attack on ONE is an attack on ALL. Doesn't even matter if a US ship were to be attacked in international waters, it will be seen as an act of aggression towards a member of the pact and activate article V.

 

[xizhimen]

Yep,
sorry little bit off topic, remember when Poland made wargames against Russia and their military only survive for 7 days, while now in reality Russian cant decimated Ukraine even 100+ days

Rigged to some extent, but they have to by and large represent the real situation, you don't see US always loses in their simulated war games, they also have to account for the army morale, no one wants to fight a war which is believed to be bound to lose.

 

[Jagdflieger]

US own hypersonic missile, strat bombers flying from CONUS, US frontline aviation in Japan/Korea, cruise missile strike from US SSGN lurking somewhere near China, cruise missile strike from US destroyers all in one go and in a cooperative manner.

Sorry but the USA does not have hyper sonic missiles yet. And cruise missiles (far too slow) are primarily only useful against underdogs.

Just so you know China's principle long range aviation bombers the H-6N are actually closer to the P-8, China has not yet produce heavy hitting bombers like the B-52 or B-1 nor it had produced stealth bombers like the B-2.

The likely hood of a B-52 making it towards China is more like 0, the B-1 wouldn't fare much better and the B-2 aren't enough to provide a winning factor.

A single B-1 could carry as much as 24 JASSM cruise missile in its internal belly alone, a flight of 8 divided in two four ship flight would throw 192 cruise missile at you before R2B to Alaska to refuel, re-arm and fly again doing the same thing, I don't think people appreciate just how much and how fast the US could deliver those firepower on target and in time. There are 45 B-1s in total.

An AGM-158 JASSM has only an effective range of 350-400km, JASSM-ER range around 900km and even the JASSM-XR with a range of around 2000km isn't expected to enter service before 2024. The best part is that both the JASSM-ER and XR don't fit into the internal weapon-bay of the F-35. All of them are sub-sonic so good luck to them penetrating China's air-defense.

The USA IMO will never confront China directly - since it would mean an end to their world-dominance with an almost immediate effect. Totally independent of how much damage they might be able to inflict upon China.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Yep,
sorry little bit off topic, remember when Poland made wargames against Russia and their military only survive for 7 days, while now in reality Russian cant decimated Ukraine even 100+ days

It always depends on what level of effectiveness the planers of wargames attribute to the "blues" and to the "reds"

During e.g. Red Flag exercises the USA usually wins or shows the better performance - however the same hardware involved in other countries national exercises
usually comes up with quite the opposite or rather different results.

In Germany "unique" tests were and are done in regards to RCS and EM emissions - therefore we know that the F-35 isn't a game changer in regards to e.g a Eurofighter or a Rafale. Therefore Germany's reason to purchase the F-35 has nothing to with it being a better aircraft but simply the US refusal to give it's nuke launch coded to the Eurofighter. So the F-35 is a great aircraft but it isn't better at all compared to a Rafale or Eurofighter.

However during exercises conducted by the USA e.g. Red Flag, RIMPAC, etc. the "values" of the F-35 are kind of rigged.

The USA's main problem and that of it's allies is the "little" knowledge they actually have in regards to China's military hardware and it's operators.

Therefore the USA would never be willing to get into a war with China, before having made use of a proxy.
China in turn off course is aware of that and in return will not commit it's "possible" capability towards a proxy. So it stay's at cat and mouse games.

 

[Lordimperator]

Therefore the USA would never be willing to get into a war with China, before having made use of a proxy.
China in turn off course is aware of that and in return will not commit it's "possible" capability towards a proxy. So it stay's at cat and mouse games.

Now about USA here i proposed some skirmish
1. Taiwan,
2. Korean Peninsula
3. SCS
4. India Border

Which of them most likely happened in the near situation and USA happily become to be weapon supplier to bleed the PLA as much as possible? Noted conventional war, no tactical nuke yet

 

[xizhimen]

Now about USA here i proposed some skirmish
1. Taiwan,
2. Korean Peninsula
3. SCS
4. India Border

Which of them most likely happened in the near situation and USA happily become the weapon supplier to bleed the PLA as much as possible? Noted conventional war, no tactical nuke yet

None

 

[Lordimperator]

None

Hopefully none of them would be errupted

 

[xizhimen]

Hopefully none of them would be errupted

Neither US nor China want to go to war now

US national security advisor meets top China official to ‘manage competition’

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with China’s Communist Party Politburo Member and Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs

english.alarabiya.net

US Wants Hotline With Russian Military to Avoid Accidental Clash: Report

The US government plans to set up a communication backchannel with Russian armed forces to prevent an accidental clash between troops.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[Lordimperator]

Anyway, how about the chinese shipyard in commercial sector?

 

[xizhimen]

Wars in the Pacific will be less and less likely in the future, US won't like to fight a war that it can't win, US by and large is withdrawing, it's ability to wage wars overseas is waning fast. China doesn't want any wars in the first place, China is always business and trade oriented. The future world will be more likely to be a peaceful one.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Now about USA here i proposed some skirmish
1. Taiwan,
2. Korean Peninsula
3. SCS
4. India Border

Which of them most likely happened in the near situation and USA happily become to be weapon supplier to bleed the PLA as much as possible? Noted conventional war, no tactical nuke yet

Naturally the USA would love India to get into a war with China - huge defense contracts to replace those of Russia and others. Geo-strategically however it would be of more or less no benefit for the USA. And India especially Modi, is far to clever as not to realize such an attempt/motive by the USA.

Taiwan - no not for that purpose, their Armed forces are far too inferior to proof anything.

Korea - they don't really fancy the USA too much - but are in need for them in regards to N-Korea. Also the relationship between S-Korea and China is actually quite good and both do not have significant disputes.

SCS, no one really around to challenge China - so I don't see a S.E.A. nation being suicidal or sorry, naive enough to be used as a proxy.

IMO, the most suitable candidate for the USA is Japan - they are getting more and more nationalistic and the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands might just be the basis to try and agitate both sides into a military confrontation - and Japan is the country in Asia most close towards the USA's military potential.
But then again to my knowledge and experience in Japan - the Japanese military and the Japanese population are two different animals altogether.

 

[xizhimen]

Anyway, how about the chinese shipyard in commercial sector?

The biggest shipbuilding hub Shanghai was under lockdown for 3 months, now the lockdown had been lifted and shipbuilding business is recovering. Yesterday Shanghai registered zero covid case the first time in 3 months.

 

[xizhimen]

IMO, the most suitable candidate for the USA is Japan - they are getting more and more nationalistic and the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands might just be the basis to try and agitate both sides into a military confrontation - and Japan is the country in Asia most close towards the USA's military potential.

We share the same mind here, the only real possible hotspot will be the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands

 

[xizhimen]

But Japan also needs to keep an eye on Russia, which becomes very hostile towards Japan recently, with the mounting pressure from Russia, Japan would be not likely to take their chance with China, I guess, I could be wrong though, because Japanese are totally different species and no one knows what's really on their mind.