NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Allanea]

I don't know how the US is going to be able to defeat illiterate terrorists, and maintain its superpower status with only five times the amount of aircraft carriers China has. Like, I just don't know.

How will we live?

[Gallia-]

Lmao how do you think? Because none of the aircraft carriers work, the pilots haven't flown in eight months, and all the planes are sitting around being useless for want of spares.

By your logic, North Korea should steamroll the ROK and conquer America because it has so many more tanks and artillery LOL.

e: Anyway the Chinese have an exactly 1:1 ratio of carriers with the U.S. Navy. The USN wouldn't be able to commit more than two, very much maybe three, aircraft carriers to the Pacific. It has to police the Indian Ocean, Atlantic, and Mediterranean as well. China only needs to match what the U.S. Navy is willing to put down, in the Pacific, which is far short of its full tonnage. And at the moment, the Chinese are going up and the USN is going down, and it looks like America might meet the Chinese on the way to the bottom. It will definitely meet sometime before 2030, and the Chinese will surpass it before 2040. Not in numbers at sea, but in technology and readiness definitely.

About the only thing the USN would have going for it would be the mettle of its sailors, but even that is perilously endangered since the USN is short of experienced petty officers for the reasons that article mentions. To fight and win the next war, the USA has to start thinking decades ahead of the present, to the 2030s or so. Because that is probably how long it will take to repair the operational readiness gaps of the DOD brought on by BCA, assuming a big hike in spending happens, but it still won't address the key problem of being technologically outclassed and possibly outnumbered in terms of VLO aircraft.

It's unlikely that the USA will be able to win a war in the future against the PLAN after 2040. There are no new ships programmed, besides a few Virginias, which will be a 50+ year old design at that point, and any ships that would need to enter service would have to start right now in order to get through the bureaucratic swamp. Budget cap probably won't be lifted until the mid-2020s now because lawmakers can't agree on ~the fiscal cliff~ so there's another 2 years of imposed funding deficit for the USN.

[Allanea]

e: Anyway the Chinese have an exactly 1:1 ratio of carriers with the U.S. Navy. The USN wouldn't be able to commit more than two, very much maybe three, aircraft carriers to the Pacific. It has to police the Indian Ocean, Atlantic, and Mediterranean as well. China only needs to match what the U.S. Navy is willing to put down, in the Pacific, which is far short of its full tonnage. And at the moment, the Chinese are going up and the USN is going down, and it looks like America might meet the Chinese on the way to the bottom. It will definitely meet sometime before 2030, and the Chinese will surpass it before 2040. Not in numbers at sea, but in technology and readiness definitely.

The Chinese have one aircraft carrier, and another under construction.

The US has 11 'true' aircraft carriers, and additionally about a dozen landing ships which are only not called áircraft carriers'for political reasons. (these are 'non-aircraft carrier's that carry about as many aircraft as the Chinese aircraft carrier).

[Gallia-]

e: Anyway the Chinese have an exactly 1:1 ratio of carriers with the U.S. Navy. The USN wouldn't be able to commit more than two, very much maybe three, aircraft carriers to the Pacific. It has to police the Indian Ocean, Atlantic, and Mediterranean as well. China only needs to match what the U.S. Navy is willing to put down, in the Pacific, which is far short of its full tonnage. And at the moment, the Chinese are going up and the USN is going down, and it looks like America might meet the Chinese on the way to the bottom. It will definitely meet sometime before 2030, and the Chinese will surpass it before 2040. Not in numbers at sea, but in technology and readiness definitely.

The Chinese have one aircraft carrier, and another under construction.

The US has 11 'true' aircraft carriers, and additionally about a dozen landing ships which are only not called áircraft carriers'for political reasons. (these are 'non-aircraft carrier's that carry about as many aircraft as the Chinese aircraft carrier).

I just told you the US Navy has other duties besides the Pacific. This isn't a video game where you can just throw all your units at the enemy or whatever. The USN would probably be willing to commit a third of its battle fleet (Pacific and Indian Ocean) to the Pacific Theater and that entails something like 2-3 aircraft carriers and their escorts. The Chinese only need 3-4 carriers to match the USN's maximal commitment to the Pacific. If a war were to happen toomorrow the USN would probably be able to get 1-2 carriers and their escorts mustered, so that might be optimistic.

The real question is whether or not the PLAN will be able to match the USN's SSN fleet. If it can, then the USN is in for a world of hurt because that is the only place where the USA could feasibly have an advantage against the Chinese post-2040. It will be outnumbered and outgunned in the air, equally matched and probably partially exceeded on the surface, completely dominated on land, and probably superior in the undersea realm.

If it isn't superior in the undersea arena, then the USN will be defeated and the PRC will own the world.

The Digital Panopticon cometh.

Although TBF I find this aspect of the PRC to be the most comforting aspect because I actually agree with it to an extent.

[Allanea]

The Chinese only need 3-4 carriers to match the USN's maximal commitment to the Pacific. If a war were to happen toomorrow the USN would probably be able to get 1-2 carriers and their escorts mustered, so that might be optimistic.

3-4 aircraft carriers that do not exist and for which no plans exist for building them, no budgets and no blueprints.

The Chinese have one aircraft carrier, and another under construction.

The US right now factually has 3 aircraft carriers off North Korea's shores, and in addition to this an LHA that's 'not an aircraft carrier' but is carrying more F-35s than the Chinese carrier has combat aircraft on board.

If war would happen tomorrow, the US navy has three aircraft carriers deployed right now.

[Gallia-]

The Chinese only need 3-4 carriers to match the USN's maximal commitment to the Pacific. If a war were to happen toomorrow the USN would probably be able to get 1-2 carriers and their escorts mustered, so that might be optimistic.

3-4 aircraft carriers that do not exist and for which no plans exist for building them, no budgets and no blueprints.

It doesn't matter. The Chinese can do all of this in ~20 years.

The Chinese have one aircraft carrier, and another under construction.

And they may very well have anywhere from 3-6 in 2040, with nothing but FC-31s and J-20s. What's the US Navy flying in 2040? Probably some kind of supercharged F-18 and a handful of F-35C.

The US right now factually has 3 aircraft carriers off North Korea's shores, and in addition to this an LHA that's 'not an aircraft carrier' but is carrying more F-35s than the Chinese carrier has combat aircraft on board.

I forgot about the LHAs. Probably because they're useless as aircraft carriers since they lack adequate stores for, well, anything.

If war would happen tomorrow, the US navy has three aircraft carriers deployed right now.

Then they've more or less committed every available carrier they could without sacrificing from other theaters.

If you wanted to strip a carrier from the Atlantic and the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean, you can bulk that up to 5 carriers. But that's "general nuclear war" level of commitment.

[Allanea]

It doesn't matter. The Chinese can do all of this in ~20 years.

At this point you're basically worldbuidling a future cyberpunk universe about which we know little.

[Gallia-]

It doesn't matter. The Chinese can do all of this in ~20 years.

At this point you're basically worldbuidling a future cyberpunk universe about which we know little.

No, at this point I'm copy/pasting what the US Navy itself says.

Both China and Russia are able to
compete on a global scale, in all domains, and at competitive speed. They both possess
considerable space, cyber, and nuclear forces. Both are challenging U.S. influence and
interests in expanding areas of the world, often in maritime spaces. They have been very
explicit about their maritime intentions, and have moved out smartly to advance them. China’s
2015 white paper asserted that “[t]he traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be
abandoned...It is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure
commensurate with its national security and development interests...so as to provide support
for building itself into a maritime power.” This goal is reflected in China’s shipbuilding efforts,
which analysts recently characterized as proceeding at a “frenetic pace,” with the fleet
“modernizing at an incredible rate [that] shows no signs of abating.” As just two examples, until
2009, China had a single ballistic missile submarine; it has added another three since. And the
Chinese Navy commissioned 18 ships last year. China has used this growing and modernized
fleet to sail all over the world, visiting ports across the globe and establishing new overseas
bases.

The pace at which potential competitors are moving
demands that we in turn increase the speed at which we act. Our advantage is shrinking -- we
must reverse this trend.

To support this capability evolution and deploy the air wing to
relevant places in the world with sufficient capacity, the Navy will need 12 aircraft carriers to
enable deployment of 5-6 carrier strike groups within relatively short time frames.

It took the USN 10 years to produce the Virginia class submarine. I think the Chinese can produce a few aircraft carriers in twice that amount of time. Not only are they more willing to thrown down the coin for it, they're not hampered by the need for legalese rituals that require an AoA every 6 months or whatever that takes 2 years to finish.

If you think that 20-30 years is too long for the PLAN to have a few carriers, then clearly you are projecting the USN's inability to procure anything besides NSSN onto them. Which is flawed. The Chinese do not yet worship at the altar of McNamara and Motor City "efficiency". The USN will have broadly the same fleet composition in 2040 that it does today, barring a handful of already programmed Virginias, because it will take that amount of time to get the new ships that they conjure up in the 2020s into cutting steel. Maybe the USN of the 2070s will be competitive with the Cyber!PLAN, though.

For it to be anything otherwise would require a reversal of the past 55 years of bureaucratic trend overnight.

e: Of course, the way things are going the USN might be in a pickle if China can coax Europe towards it. G3 is perhaps the best outcome in terms of global stability, but I suppose you'd need to cast away any actual pretenses of giving a shit about 1.3 billion people.

[NeuPolska]

@Gallia little late but I certainly wasn't opposed to anything you said about SS being normal people, I'm sorry if it didn't seem to be so, but what I was trying to imply was that they stopped herding prisoners to their deaths and went back to doing "normal" jobs and being decent people.

@Kassaran might as well take care of the ones we know the identities of, for justice, but as for the ones that get away without leaving much of a trace that they were ISIS members, who cares, especially if they go home to their families or wherever and don't kill people anymore?

[Gallia-]

@Gallia little late but I certainly wasn't opposed to anything you said about SS being normal people, I'm sorry if it didn't seem to be so, but what I was trying to imply was that they stopped herding prisoners to their deaths and went back to doing "normal" jobs and being decent people.

This is true but they still should be tried. There's no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity.

@Kassaran might as well take care of the ones we know the identities of, for justice, but as for the ones that get away without leaving much of a trace that they were ISIS members, who cares, especially if they go home to their families or wherever and don't kill people anymore?

The people they raped, murdered, and enslaved, and the families of those people.

[NeuPolska]

Ok valid points

[The Manticoran Empire]

I'm no expert on the situation with China but I have little reason to doubt their capabilities. Even if they are, technologically, behind the United States, they have more than enough manpower. And that is a best case scenario. If they are a technological peer or, heaven forbid, technologically superior to the United States, it is very possible that they could could meet or exceed SUN estimates on their ability to build warships capable of challenging the US. And herein lies the fundamental downside of America's position. We need two fleets to guard our shores. China only needs one. The US has 5 carriers assigned to the Pacific Fleet. All China needs is that many before the US cannot afford to drag the Carriers of the Atlantic Fleet into the Pacific. Now, if we assume that China is willing to lay down the cash for a fleet of 100,000+ ton aircraft carriers and has overcome their issue with jet engine power, then we will have a serious problem. It takes the US three years to build an aircraft carrier. 5 years total before it's commissioned and in service. China could potentially cut this in half. Not to mention that, while the US may have an advantage right now, China has enough people to keep up the fight while they build their new fleet of carriers. I think the problem is that people underestimate the Chinese. People assume that China is a paper tiger, which it is, however it is more than capable of becoming a very real threat. If it isn't already.

[Husseinarti]

navies never won a war

[Purpelia]

All this is irrelevant because the next war between great powers will not be fought by men, tanks aircraft or navies. It will be fought by missiles and last roughly 15 minutes at best.

[The Manticoran Empire]

navies never won a war

No. No they haven't. But they have proven useful. After all, logistics are just as important as manpower. Without food, fuel, and raw materials, you don't have ammunition, you don't have tanks, and you don't have an army. In that respect, a navy is very helpful. The navy is also important if most of your population is located 5,000 miles from the combat zone. Ships can carry more people than planes can.

All this is irrelevant because the next war between great powers will not be fought by men, tanks aircraft or navies. It will be fought by missiles and last roughly 15 minutes at best.

Can we please assume best case?

[Purpelia]

Can we please assume best case?

That IS the best case. America and China genocide one another quickly in an atomic conflict, the rest of us pick up and move on to a slightly irradiated but still tolerable future.

Worst case is that we get another several decades of cold war with minor unimportant countries nobody cares about (other than the millions of innocents living in them) getting dragged through the mud and blood of imperial politics culminating in a big one down the line which than proceeds to be a conventional war (got to murder those millions of innocents somehow) and only escalates into atomic when one side is driven into a corner (maximum linger time ensures maximum horrible suffering). Oh, and Europe gets dragged into it because these big ones tend to have that sort of effect.

[-AlEmAnNiA-]

navies never won a war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

fake edit: technically coast guard but coast guard is police navy anyways

[The Manticoran Empire]

Can we please assume best case?

That IS the best case. America and China genocide one another quickly in an atomic conflict, the rest of us pick up and move on to a slightly irradiated but still tolerable future.

Worst case is that we get another several decades of cold war with minor unimportant countries nobody cares about (other than the millions of innocents living in them) getting dragged through the mud and blood of imperial politics culminating in a big one down the line which than proceeds to be a conventional war (got to murder those millions of innocents somehow) and only escalates into atomic when one side is driven into a corner (maximum linger time ensures maximum horrible suffering). Oh, and Europe gets dragged into it because these big ones tend to have that sort of effect.

Best case is not mass genocide. Honestly, best case would be a Cold War, since the death toll would be far lower than a short nuclear exchange.

[Arkandros]

navies never won a war

Lies and slander.

[Allanea]

Orderly Transition is Orderly

[Purpelia]

That IS the best case. America and China genocide one another quickly in an atomic conflict, the rest of us pick up and move on to a slightly irradiated but still tolerable future.

Worst case is that we get another several decades of cold war with minor unimportant countries nobody cares about (other than the millions of innocents living in them) getting dragged through the mud and blood of imperial politics culminating in a big one down the line which than proceeds to be a conventional war (got to murder those millions of innocents somehow) and only escalates into atomic when one side is driven into a corner (maximum linger time ensures maximum horrible suffering). Oh, and Europe gets dragged into it because these big ones tend to have that sort of effect.

Best case is not mass genocide. Honestly, best case would be a Cold War, since the death toll would be far lower than a short nuclear exchange.

Except that we are explicitly working under the assumption that a war does eventually break out. That is the whole premise of this conversation. Therefore a cold war without a proper war at the end is not compatible with the scenario as outlined.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Best case is not mass genocide. Honestly, best case would be a Cold War, since the death toll would be far lower than a short nuclear exchange.

Except that we are explicitly working under the assumption that a war does eventually break out. That is the whole premise of this conversation. Therefore a cold war without a proper war at the end is not compatible with the scenario as outlined.

Fair enough.

[Crysuko]

not sure if this is the thread for it, but I have a question regarding air forces.

is an aircraft carrier capable of carrying and servicing at least one heavy bomber aircraft (think B1 lancer or similar). for purposes of strategic bombing missions

[Allanea]

not sure if this is the thread for it, but I have a question regarding air forces.

is an aircraft carrier capable of carrying and servicing at least one heavy bomber aircraft (think B1 lancer or similar). for purposes of strategic bombing missions

No, nor is there a point.

If you have an aircraft carrier, you can carry out 'strategic bombing missions' with regular-sized carrier aircraft.

[The Akasha Colony]

not sure if this is the thread for it, but I have a question regarding air forces.

is an aircraft carrier capable of carrying and servicing at least one heavy bomber aircraft (think B1 lancer or similar). for purposes of strategic bombing missions

No.

The whole point of an aircraft carrier is to be able to move the air base closer to the target, reducing the need for huge, extremely long-range bombers.