NationStates Jolt Archive

A little interesting article I found.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040907-navy-ships.htm

I was wondering when this would happen. For one, the US is the unrivaled master of the seas. For another, our biggest naval threat today comes from fishing boats and pirates, not other navies. We currently have 290 ships in our fleet, which is more than adequate compared to many of the navies today. Do we need 90 more ships in ten years?
In this day and age, we don't need a 350+ fleet of what are some of the biggest and most capable ships in the world. It is just far too expensive and impractical. We need a navy to focus on these times. I like how they are beginning to focus more on little patrol boats and counterterrorism measures, rather than ordering these capitol ships.
BTW, to give you an idea of our navy currently, the US has twelve aircraft carriers. In a distant second is Britain with three, but they are all light carriers, as are all of the other nations with them (which have one each). Plus, our amphibious landing ships can double as light aircraft carriers. Do we really need more power projection capabilities?

We always have o be able to defend our title as srongest nation. But it is good to switch to counter terrorism instead of huge ass ships.

A little interesting article I found.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...-navy-ships.htm

I was wondering when this would happen. For one, the US is the unrivaled master of the seas. For another, our biggest naval threat today comes from fishing boats and pirates, not other navies. We currently have 290 ships in our fleet, which is more than adequate compared to many of the navies today. Do we need 90 more ships in ten years?
In this day and age, we don't need a 350+ fleet of what are some of the biggest and most capable ships in the world. It is just far too expensive and impractical. We need a navy to focus on these times. I like how they are beginning to focus more on little patrol boats and counterterrorism measures, rather than ordering these capitol ships.
BTW, to give you an idea of our navy currently, the US has twelve aircraft carriers. In a distant second is Britain with three, but they are all light carriers, as are all of the other nations with them (which have one each). Plus, our amphibious landing ships can double as light aircraft carriers. Do we really need more power projection capabilities?

Plus they dont account all the Merchant marine ships, MPF and other cargo transports. Also the Army has quite a few ships at sea at times, kind of like how the Navy has more aircraft than the airforce lol.

In the world of terrorism I do agree that our Navy is sufficient, we need to be looking more towards special operators and thier toys and ground troops and surveilence more than we need another aircraft carrier or lst or lsd or elcac or whatever else. Although I do think we should get a few more elcac's they are bad ass.

We always have o be able to defend our title as srongest nation.
Don't worry. Congress will probably want to go out of its way to save those shipyards, even if they aren't needed now. I expect them to fight very hard, too, as Trent Lott, still a very powerful senator, has one litteraly a block down the road from him.

A little interesting article I found.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...-navy-ships.htm



Plus they dont account all the Merchant marine ships, MPF and other cargo transports. Also the Army has quite a few ships at sea at times, kind of like how the Navy has more aircraft than the airforce lol.

In the world of terrorism I do agree that our Navy is sufficient, we need to be looking more towards special operators and thier toys and ground troops and surveilence more than we need another aircraft carrier or lst or lsd or elcac or whatever else. Although I do think we should get a few more elcac's they are bad ass.
What're elacs?

Don't worry. Congress will probably want to go out of its way to save those shipyards, even if they aren't needed now. I expect them to fight very hard, too, as Trent Lott, still a very powerful senator, has one litteraly a block down the road from him.

In gulf port? I know they have quite a few amphibs there.

What're elacs?

A hovercraft that goes over 60 mph and can carry tanks and anything else you load on. Bad ass I wish I could load a video on here.

With the PLAN growing at an alarming rate, it is more important today to keep the US fleet up to speed.

The PLAN is a threat and with the ROC planning on declaring indenpendence in a few years and the improved amphibious abilities of the PLAN you can expect hell to pay in Formosa.

I am applying for NROTC and will go active upon getting my comission so this is an issue that I have followed very closesly. I am planning to go into the submarine service and am alarmed by the condition of the sub fleet in 10 years. We have many 20+ year old 688 class boats and only about 5 boats have been built in the last 10 years. The Virginia class isn't being built fast enough. I fear the future if the US Navy doesn't keep buildinig

With the PLAN growing at an alarming rate, it is more important today to keep the US fleet up to speed.

The PLAN is a threat and with the ROC planning on declaring indenpendence in a few years and the improved amphibious abilities of the PLAN you can expect hell to pay in Formosa.

I am applying for NROTC and will go active upon getting my comission so this is an issue that I have followed very closesly. I am planning to go into the submarine service and am alarmed by the condition of the sub fleet in 10 years. We have many 20+ year old 688 class boats and only about 5 boats have been built in the last 10 years. The Virginia class isn't being built fast enough. I fear the future if the US Navy doesn't keep buildinig
Ah, so you are stuck in the Cold War trap. I know that this is especially common among submarine officers (must be because of their role in the Cold War). Is China's navy growing at all? A little. Is it anything great? Hardly.
If Taiwan declares independence, it won't automatically signify a Chinese invasion. Why? Because they depend on the US far more than we depend on China. War isn't impossible, but it is far more unlikely because of this situation.

Ah, so you are stuck in the Cold War trap. I know that this is especially common among submarine officers (must be because of their role in the Cold War). Is China's navy growing at all? A little. Is it anything great? Hardly.
If Taiwan declares independence, it won't automatically signify a Chinese invasion. Why? Because they depend on the US far more than we depend on China. War isn't impossible, but it is far more unlikely because of this situation.

My reasoning is that the PLA has said that if the ROC declares Indepenence they will invade them. The Chinese don't think the way we do. They still believe Taiwan is their province and if they declare official independence China won't think it out logically, they will attack and the only thing that can stop them is the US Navy.

China's navy is growing rapidly. They are purchasing every ship of value in the Russian Navy (including the very capable and dangerous Sovremenny DDGs). They are trying to purchase the unfinished Kuznetsoz class carrier Admiral Gorshov from the Russians. The ship has been in a Ukranian ship yard wince 1991. China wants to build their own carriers too and has greatly improved their amphibious abilities indicating invasion plans of Taiwan.

With the PLAN growing at an alarming rate, it is more important today to keep the US fleet up to speed.

Afaik, the PLAN is not growing at an alarming rate, it isn't even growing to become a minor threat to the USN. There are of course, the rumors (near conspiracy theories) about the construction of massive supercarriers that dwarf Nimitz class CVN's (Somehow by studying Russian Kuznetov class Aircraft Carriers, which China is purchasing), but that is ignoring the fact that China has no tradition of Naval building (something integral to the USN, Royal Navy, etc.), and almost no experience in the fields to challenge the USN, submarine and aircraft carriers. In the field of Aircraft Carriers the USN has a massive lead, having been at the forefront of CV developement since their inception, China cannot just come out with supercarriers out of the blue.

My reasoning is that the PLA has said that if the ROC declares Indepenence they will invade them. The Chinese don't think the way we do. They still believe Taiwan is their province and if they declare official independence China won't think it out logically, they will attack and the only thing that can stop them is the US Navy.

China's navy is growing rapidly. They are purchasing every ship of value in the Russian Navy (including the very capable and dangerous Sovremenny DDGs). They are trying to purchase the unfinished Kuznetsoz class carrier Admiral Gorshov from the Russians. The ship has been in a Ukranian ship yard wince 1991. China wants to build their own carriers too and has greatly improved their amphibious abilities indicating invasion plans of Taiwan.
Dear God! What are you thinking! China has been trying to buy an aircraft carrier for years, and has tried to build one. However, it has had no luck, despite it having a defunct Australian aircraft carrier for a couple of decades.
And the PLA threatening Taiwan is really just rhetoric. The rhetoric is to rally the Chinese people, and the missile buildup is nothing more than to show Taiwan who the boss is. But it'd be utterly stupid if China invades. It'd not be impossible that they will, but it is unlikely, unless a madman gets into power there. But the PRC is not a dictatorship, but rather a superhuge oligarchy. Fortunatly, a madman can never gain too much power, unlike in so many wars.

Afaik, the PLAN is not growing at an alarming rate, it isn't even growing to become a minor threat to the USN. There are of course, the rumors (near conspiracy theories) about the construction of massive supercarriers that dwarf Nimitz class CVN's (Somehow by studying Russian Kuznetov class Aircraft Carriers, which China is purchasing), but that is ignoring the fact that China has no tradition of Naval building (something integral to the USN, Royal Navy, etc.), and almost no experience in the fields to challenge the USN, submarine and aircraft carriers. In the field of Aircraft Carriers the USN has a massive lead, having been at the forefront of CV developement since their inception, China cannot just come out with supercarriers out of the blue.

The Chinese are buying licenses up for Russian ship classes to produce them. Their carriers won't dwarf a Nimitz, but if the US Navy doesn't continue building or at least maintain current size then we will have problems.

Dear God! What are you thinking! China has been trying to buy an aircraft carrier for years, and has tried to build one. However, it has had no luck, despite it having a defunct Australian aircraft carrier for a couple of decades.
And the PLA threatening Taiwan is really just rhetoric. The rhetoric is to rally the Chinese people, and the missile buildup is nothing more than to show Taiwan who the boss is. But it'd be utterly stupid if China invades. It'd not be impossible that they will, but it is unlikely, unless a madman gets into power there. But the PRC is not a dictatorship, but rather a superhuge oligarchy. Fortunatly, a madman can never gain too much power, unlike in so many wars.
Dictators don't think rationally. The PLA is crazy enough to do it

Afaik, the PLAN is not growing at an alarming rate, it isn't even growing to become a minor threat to the USN. There are of course, the rumors (near conspiracy theories) about the construction of massive supercarriers that dwarf Nimitz class CVN's (Somehow by studying Russian Kuznetov class Aircraft Carriers, which China is purchasing), but that is ignoring the fact that China has no tradition of Naval building (something integral to the USN, Royal Navy, etc.), and almost no experience in the fields to challenge the USN, submarine and aircraft carriers. In the field of Aircraft Carriers the USN has a massive lead, having been at the forefront of CV developement since their inception, China cannot just come out with supercarriers out of the blue.
You're right about this. China is a land power, and is likely to stay that way. They don't even have an air force that is adequate to some of their neighbors. What really worries me is their nukes. I don't want to visit the crater that was once called New York City. Similarly, however, China probably doesn't want their cities to be craters, either. So I really do think war with China is a very distant probability. In fact, we have more reasons to embrace the Chinese military and work with it, not plan fights against it.
I know, you tell me that I'm falling into the economic trap. But there are differences between pre WWI Europe, and thhe world today. For one, our economies are far more based on foreign trade than they were a century ago. In fact, since WWII, trade has increased in volume by 16 fold, and the world economy sextupled. For another, the German government was ruled almost entirely by the Kaiser and his cronies, with few checks and balances. China on the surface may have none, but it has a very informal system. It seems like an absolute dictatorship, but it is extremely competitive. It doesn't have a balance of powers, per se, but it is like the Roman Senate, with a balance of interests. It may be as inefficient as hell, but this makes war all the more unlikely. We have more important fish to fry than the Chinese, who are probably better for the US as an ally.

Dictators don't think rationally. The PLA is crazy enough to do it
The problem is that they aren't a dictatorship.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/chiefs38.html
Here's a nice little list. Now tell me, who has the power in the PRC. Is it Hu Jintao, or Jiang Zemin.

If China had a major military strategic advantage from maintaining taiwan I could see them treating them the same way we would treat Alaska if they tried seceding. But also nothing is for sure when your dealing with men that are suffering from the big ego little penis complex (it seems prevalent and rampant among every country).

If China had a major military strategic advantage from maintaining taiwan under control then I could see them treating them the same way we would treat Alaska if they tried seceding. But also nothing is for sure when your dealing with men that are suffering from the big ego little penis complex (it seems prevalent and rampant among every country).
But it's utterly stupid for them to invade. Even if we did, I doubt the US would immediatly unleash a military response. We'd try to act as a mediator, and hopefully, return all of China to the status quo (which the mainland is content with).

But it's utterly stupid for them to invade. Even if we did, I doubt the US would immediatly unleash a military response. We'd try to act as a mediator, and hopefully, return all of China to the status quo (which the mainland is content with).

Oh for sure, but I am sure we have trained extensively on this conflict. Still, no way would we treat it like it was Iraq invading Kuwait. But also considering who is president I can not say no way, I think he moves much swifter than Clinton did in waging war, at least as far as I can tell. Not that it is a good thing all the time.

Oh for sure, but I am sure we have trained extensively on this conflict. Still, no way would we treat it like it was Iraq invading Kuwait. But also considering who is president I can not say no way, I think he moves much swifter than Clinton did in waging war, at least as far as I can tell. Not that it is a good thing all the time.
Bush wouldn't want to wage a war, either. We're tied up in other places. Still, I find it highly unlikely that either side will make a move. But with Taiwanese nationalism growing, and a more hardline generation of leaders, I'm not optimistic that the status quo will hold forever.

China's navy is growing rapidly. They are purchasing every ship of value in the Russian Navy (including the very capable and dangerous Sovremenny DDGs). They are trying to purchase the unfinished Kuznetsoz class carrier Admiral Gorshov from the Russians. The ship has been in a Ukranian ship yard wince 1991. China wants to build their own carriers too and has greatly improved their amphibious abilities indicating invasion plans of Taiwan

China has about a 20 Billion dollar budget. I doubt it can afford and maintain high tech vessels, not to mention it has to provide food, and necesarry equipment to it's army. It's airforce too is the largest in the world. (personel wise) Maintaining, and the costs of all that would be quite a lot. Agreed China does have a large navy, but it can't contend with the US Navy.

Goodluck with your NROTC submission.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/taiwan-prc.htm
This is a nice little description of China's options, and as it shows, invasion of Taiwan is nearly impossible without nukes (which will gurantee a nuclear response from the US). I think that if a referendum for Taiwanese independence goes ahead, China will invade a few Taiwanese held islands that are otherwise of no value. I know Spain and Morrocco often have confrontations on islands in the Strait of Gibralter, which nearly turned into war even in 2002 (though it was resolved quickly). It's enough for China to make its point, and probably to scare the Taiwanese into the status quo.

Now, for those interested, can we discuss about why we do need this new navy? I'll start with an opening comment.
Destroyers can go at around 30 knots. But they are good only for destroying other warships and such. Now, how fast does a speedboat with a terrorist cell go? Up to 50 knots, perhaps more. We need something that can check anything from little fishing boats to huge supertankers.We also need a navy that is more versatile, and unafraid to chase terrorists a bit inland.
Now don't get me wrong, our capital ships have many uses these days. They reassure allies that we're there when we need them, and are good at enforcing blockades. But we do need to put a bit more emphasis on patrol boats and such, not so that we can eliminate big boats like aircraft carriers, but to compliment them.

Now, for those interested, can we discuss about why we do need this new navy? I'll start with an opening comment. Destroyers can go at around 30 knots. But they are good only for destroying other warships and such. Now, how fast does a speedboat with a terrorist cell go? Up to 50 knots, perhaps more. We need something that can check anything from little fishing boats to huge supertankers.We also need a navy that is more versatile, and unafraid to chase terrorists a bit inland. Now don't get me wrong, our capital ships have many uses these days. They reassure allies that we're there when we need them, and are good at enforcing blockades. But we do need to put a bit more emphasis on patrol boats and such, not so that we can eliminate big boats like aircraft carriers, but to compliment them.


Destroyers also have the seawiz for anti aircraft and other anti-aerial means.
Spec-war's MK-17's that will travel in excess of 90mph with over 60 occupants, along with sbu's services for small boat to medium patrol. The Navy has the versitility and the strength as it is now, but everything should keep being upgraded when it falls to new technology I agree completly.

Also the ship to shore logistical support from acu and bmu. They provide everything from the beachhead out to a few miles. Along with current technology that deflects any speed boat attempts in the future.

Now, for those interested, can we discuss about why we do need this new navy? I'll start with an opening comment.
Destroyers can go at around 30 knots. But they are good only for destroying other warships and such. Now, how fast does a speedboat with a terrorist cell go? Up to 50 knots, perhaps more. We need something that can check anything from little fishing boats to huge supertankers.We also need a navy that is more versatile, and unafraid to chase terrorists a bit inland.
Now don't get me wrong, our capital ships have many uses these days. They reassure allies that we're there when we need them, and are good at enforcing blockades. But we do need to put a bit more emphasis on patrol boats and such, not so that we can eliminate big boats like aircraft carriers, but to compliment them.


Perhaps the first thing you've said on this thread that I agree with you on. These faster forces cannot possibly replace our capital ships; they can compliment them, and make them more effective if both small and large ships are kept up-to-date, well maintained, and replaced when outdated with new models.

During the tech bubble, when people questioned how companies could be worth more on paper than they were in reality; they were told they, "Just didn't understand the new model" that they were "Behind the times; these new business models follow different rules." The bubble burst, and all of these statements were once again proved false...

I just don't understand the new military thinking. I'm behind the times; not in the cold war; but when solid Military Thinking outweighed good salesmanship and vauge allusions to terrorist threats.

Perhaps the first thing you've said on this thread that I agree with you on. These faster forces cannot possibly replace our capital ships; they can compliment them, and make them more effective if both small and large ships are kept up-to-date, well maintained, and replaced when outdated with new models.

During the tech bubble, when people questioned how companies could be worth more on paper than they were in reality; they were told they, "Just didn't understand the new model" that they were "Behind the times; these new business models follow different rules." The bubble burst, and all of these statements were once again proved false...

I just don't understand the new military thinking. I'm behind the times; not in the cold war; but when solid Military Thinking outweighed good salesmanship and vauge allusions to terrorist threats.
The Pentagon has been in an eternal search for near-peer competitors. The Pentagon's favorite is China, and that was solidified after the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1996. But how would it serve Beijing's interests to somehow engage us? Even if there was trouble in Taiwan, would China dare do more than a few island seizures and unceasing diplomacy? I think they can't without destroying the Chinese economy, and therefore, the source of China's power.
We saw, however, how close we were to confrontation. Remember that spy plane incident back in early 2001? It wouldn't lead to war, of course, but it did show that there was desire on our part to engage China at some point in the future. But as I said, is China a threat? No. In fact, China can be a very good ally of ours if we let it.
We have bigger fish to fry. The US currently spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. We have the world's only blue-water navy, and our airforce is second to none. The F-15 was never defeated in air-to-air combat, but a much more advanced fighter, the F-22, is rolling off the assembly lines. Why does our military need to think big, anymore?

Another thing is that I want to describe the nature of wars today. Did war ever happen between two well-developed democracies, or two connected societies? And what is the economic status of the enemies of the US? Not only are they poor, but they aren't intergrating into globalization, which has swept about 2/3 of the world's population. This area stretches from the Carribean to all of Africa (except South Africa), the Middle East and SE Europe (except Greece and Cyprus), Central Asia, then down to SE Asia. There are a few outliers from the arc that this forms, like North Korea, but they have the same conditions. I'm reading a book about this by a navy analysts, actually. The Pentagon's New Map by Dr. Thomas Barnett.

There is not a Country on this earth that our spy planes don't do fly overs on nor should there be.

The F-22 has been in existence well before 94.

The possible enemy's of the US is every single country out there. The probable enemy's of the US are many less.

The military machine that we feed daily can not be starved nor should it ever be put on a diet.

On a very generalized level, its useless to only prepare for enemies when they show up on your doorstep.

Arguing that threats should not be addressed until they become all too appearant is silly as well. One should be prepared to meet troubles head on; prepared for trouble you need not fear it.

Right now, in this small period of time, there are no threats worthy of a large scale military force, yes? Fine; advance the clock ten years...tell me now, are there still no threats that require a large military force? You don't know for sure, do you? And I'm arguing that being prepared in advance saves more lives than assuming that the trends you see now will carry on for years.

Right now we enjoy air superiority right? Did we in Vietnam? Yup. Did it win the war? Nope. Right now we enjoy superior armor- were the German Panzers in WW2 superior? Damn straight they were, but it didn't last forever. Technology gaps have a strange way of closing really quick, little chinks get discovered in our impressive military might. It would only take a wily enemy to stumble on that weakness once for our superiorty to dissappear seemingly overnight.

Actually China's threat to launch a conquest of Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence is not pure rhetoric. It is in reality a fact that will occur when Taiwan has the gall to declare independence. None of you are from China, so you do not understand. Mainland Chinese people are perfectly willing to launch an invasion of Taiwan and we have enough weapons pointing at Taiwan to easily complete this task. Even if the United States Navy decides to intervene, the limited waters of the Straits of Taiwan and the fact that China possesses the third largest submarine fleet in the world will preven the United States Navy from being useful.

At this point, the United States is pretty leery about launching any offensive against China as any strike will be extremely costly.

On a very generalized level, its useless to only prepare for enemies when they show up on your doorstep.

Arguing that threats should not be addressed until they become all too appearant is silly as well. One should be prepared to meet troubles head on; prepared for trouble you need not fear it.

Right now, in this small period of time, there are no threats worthy of a large scale military force, yes? Fine; advance the clock ten years...tell me now, are there still no threats that require a large military force? You don't know for sure, do you? And I'm arguing that being prepared in advance saves more lives than assuming that the trends you see now will carry on for years.

Right now we enjoy air superiority right? Did we in Vietnam? Yup. Did it win the war? Nope. Right now we enjoy superior armor- were the German Panzers in WW2 superior? Damn straight they were, but it didn't last forever. Technology gaps have a strange way of closing really quick, little chinks get discovered in our impressive military might. It would only take a wily enemy to stumble on that weakness once for our superiorty to dissappear seemingly overnight.
So, I'm sure we should also defend ourselves from space aliens, right/
You are thinking along the lines that a conventional military will just wither away. That will not happen. A military experienced in crimefighting and occupation is beginning to form independently, but it compliments, not demeans the role of the warfighting force.
What you are also suggesting is a "bolt from the blue" scenario. Suppose, for example, an absolute dictator seizes China, and wants to build up arms. Is there any way that they can before a sufficient response can be built up? Absolutely not. Too much transpearancy exists, either by internationally declaring arms (as many nations do), or through the reinforcement of spy sattelites. If spy sattelites didn't fly over North Korea, we'd never know that they had a revitalized nuclear program. There's far too much transpearancy for us not to try something. And this program, btw, does not cancel the construction of a new breed of destroyers.

Actually China's threat to launch a conquest of Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence is not pure rhetoric. It is in reality a fact that will occur when Taiwan has the gall to declare independence. None of you are from China, so you do not understand. Mainland Chinese people are perfectly willing to launch an invasion of Taiwan and we have enough weapons pointing at Taiwan to easily complete this task. Even if the United States Navy decides to intervene, the limited waters of the Straits of Taiwan and the fact that China possesses the third largest submarine fleet in the world will preven the United States Navy from being useful.

At this point, the United States is pretty leery about launching any offensive against China as any strike will be extremely costly.
That's because many Chinese are still ignorant about what any strike will do to their economy. It could mean inflation, unemployment, and the loss of the US and Japan as their biggest investors/trading partners. In fact, with the PLAN only a green water navy, I doubt it can launch a strike in the Persian Gulf to secure oil supplies (as a US fleet is there). Fortunatly, the Politboro is smarter than the average Chinese person. It's the thing I like best about China's government: despite their autocratic style, in recent years, they tend to have cooler heads than the majority of the Chinese do.

Actually China's threat to launch a conquest of Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence is not pure rhetoric. It is in reality a fact that will occur when Taiwan has the gall to declare independence. None of you are from China, so you do not understand. Mainland Chinese people are perfectly willing to launch an invasion of Taiwan and we have enough weapons pointing at Taiwan to easily complete this task. Even if the United States Navy decides to intervene, the limited waters of the Straits of Taiwan and the fact that China possesses the third largest submarine fleet in the world will preven the United States Navy from being useful.

At this point, the United States is pretty leery about launching any offensive against China as any strike will be extremely costly.

Just curious, are you from China? I wouldn't fear the Chinese submarine fleet. My reasons are that their best sub is the Han class (you have 5 of them) they are the only SSN in the PLAN. It is a very bad sub made out of early 1960's technology. I'd rather have the Nautilus or a November class (well maybe Victor I) then the very loud Han class that has made US sub sonarmen have hearing problems (not really, but that is an old US Navy joke about China)

The rest of the fleet is the Ming and Song class, basically copies of the Russain 1950's diesel sub class Romeo and that was based off of German U-boats in WWII so the Chinese navy has size, but they wouldn't detect the USS Seawolf, or any Virginia or 688 class boats. The US Navy would just be doing actions that are easier then what they drill for. They also have some old Russian Whiskeys, Romeos, and Foxtrots

Now the only thing I'd be scared of is the 3 or 4 Kilos China has. They are quiet, but nothing against the black hulled monsters of the US Navy.

As for the straight. A few CVBGs would be able to destroy any amphibious ability that the PLAN has. Once the cruisers launch TASMs and the Tomcats, Hornets, or JSFs launch their Harpoons, the Chinese Navy is dead

Everyone is arging the merit of 'sharpening' the US navy. It's not really about that, it's about not being able to afford to carry on with traditional procurement and management. The US has shot it's bolt, it has to cut-back somwhere militarily. The trend will continue and that will focus minds on how to really get bangs for bucks.

Everyone is arging the merit of 'sharpening' the US navy. It's not really about that, it's about not being able to afford to carry on with traditional procurement and management. The US has shot it's bolt, it has to cut-back somwhere militarily. The trend will continue and that will focus minds on how to really get bangs for bucks.
Exactly. About 290 ships is enough for now, especially when no near-peer threat is on the horizon.

I never thought I'd see the day when the American empire finally began to let up on it's military. It's odd, though, given that they just started another war of conquest. I can't see why they'd start considering calling it quits.

So, I'm sure we should also defend ourselves from space aliens, right/
You are thinking along the lines that a conventional military will just wither away. That will not happen. A military experienced in crimefighting and occupation is beginning to form independently, but it compliments, not demeans the role of the warfighting force.
What you are also suggesting is a "bolt from the blue" scenario. Suppose, for example, an absolute dictator seizes China, and wants to build up arms. Is there any way that they can before a sufficient response can be built up? Absolutely not. Too much transpearancy exists, either by internationally declaring arms (as many nations do), or through the reinforcement of spy sattelites. If spy sattelites didn't fly over North Korea, we'd never know that they had a revitalized nuclear program. There's far too much transpearancy for us not to try something. And this program, btw, does not cancel the construction of a new breed of destroyers.

The mighty fleets of the martian empire aside; the US has enough problems on earth. Bolt from the blue is possible, but reasonable build-ups in military power can mask true intentions.

Too much transpearancy eh? Like when we knew in advance about India doing nuclear tests? Like when we knew where the WMDs went in Iraq? Like we knew about South Korean nuclear programs? Like when the N. Koreans tested a long range missle over Japan? Hmm...I think my idea of knowing in advance and yours differs slightly; perhaps the pentagon shouldn't get its intelligence from CNN.

You're ignoring the many lessons of recent history; our spy satillites are too few, and too busy to notice everything. There are measures one can take to evade satillites with little difficulty.

I never thought I'd see the day when the American empire finally began to let up on it's military. It's odd, though, given that they just started another war of conquest. I can't see why they'd start considering calling it quits.

Exactly I dont think we will see that day either. I remember when I was still in we were getting new equipment and new ideas and research being developed from Bush and Clinton left and right. Along with all my buddies now that have all the latest and greatest upgrades. It is one area that neither side has tried to really minimize in anyway. That is why someday we will have to decide where we will make our cuts. That is when the real fun will begin.

The mighty fleets of the martian empire aside; the US has enough problems on earth. Bolt from the blue is possible, but reasonable build-ups in military power can mask true intentions.

Too much transpearancy eh? Like when we knew in advance about India doing nuclear tests? Like when we knew where the WMDs went in Iraq? Like we knew about South Korean nuclear programs? Like when the N. Koreans tested a long range missle over Japan? Hmm...I think my idea of knowing in advance and yours differs slightly; perhaps the pentagon shouldn't get its intelligence from CNN.

You're ignoring the many lessons of recent history; our spy satillites are too few, and too busy to notice everything. There are measures one can take to evade satillites with little difficulty.
First of all, India conducted its first nuclear tests long before enough spy sattelites were operational. That nonwithstanding, you're mentioning states that are rogue nations, that is, generally weak, and extremely secretive. However, they pose no great threat to the military superiority of the US. Transpearancy is mostly in nations intergrated with the rest of the world. By treaty, for example, Russia, the US, and much of Europe need to declare their arms, as is what happened during the Cold War. Spy sattelites verifyed compliance for both sides. Today, China is not that transperant, but it isn't like the Soviet Union, which was trapped in the 19th century in much of society. It is open economically, and fairly negotiable. It may not be ideal, but it's easier for a spy to get military information from an information dependent society. Note that all potential future threats, such as Russia, have a similar society.

290 ships is fine for now, someone said that and I agree, but too many of them are almost old 30 year old Spruace class DDs or 25+ year old Oliver Hazard Perry FFGs. We need to increase shipbuilding now to replace these ships and with most Ticos being retired we need Flight III Burkes, a new cruiser, or more VLS Ticos.

As for subs, we just retired the last Sturgeon class and the 688s are aging as USS Los Angeles and the 10-12 batch 1s reach 30 years old. Congress has authorized a SLEP, but that isn't enough as it may add 5-10 years max. We need to fastbuild the Virginias in large numbers now or we are screwed.

The only good news is that more Wasps are being built to retire the Tarawa class

290 ships is fine for now, someone said that and I agree, but too many of them are almost old 30 year old Spruace class DDs or 25+ year old Oliver Hazard Perry FFGs. We need to increase shipbuilding now to replace these ships and with most Ticos being retired we need Flight III Burkes, a new cruiser, or more VLS Ticos.

As for subs, we just retired the last Sturgeon class and the 688s are aging as USS Los Angeles and the 10-12 batch 1s reach 30 years old. Congress has authorized a SLEP, but that isn't enough as it may add 5-10 years max. We need to fastbuild the Virginias in large numbers now or we are screwed.

The only good news is that more Wasps are being built to retire the Tarawa class
If I recalled correctly, six ships a year will be built, along with a new class of destroyers. I read about them in Popular Science. They're all electric, and that enables them to fire pure tungsten projectiles as rail guns. They go fast enough to obliterate the target, much in the same way the Patriot Free missile systems work, using pure kinetic energy. As for our sub fleet, I could never understand why we needed that. The attack subs, yes, keep them all. But why the ballistic missile fleet? Is there a huge nuclear threat to justify 18 of them? Already, some are being loaded with cruise missiles instead of nukes.
And btw, this plan needs to pass Congress first, where it faces stiff resistance. But it's only to decelarate fleet construction. The newer, smaller boats should still be built. I'm Purly Euclid's puppet, btw.

That's because many Chinese are still ignorant about what any strike will do to their economy. It could mean inflation, unemployment, and the loss of the US and Japan as their biggest investors/trading partners. In fact, with the PLAN only a green water navy, I doubt it can launch a strike in the Persian Gulf to secure oil supplies (as a US fleet is there). Fortunatly, the Politboro is smarter than the average Chinese person. It's the thing I like best about China's government: despite their autocratic style, in recent years, they tend to have cooler heads than the majority of the Chinese do.
The Chinese government and the people understands the economic price of a war with Taiwan and it is quite willing to accept the price only if Taiwan declares independence. My uncle happens to be a high level official in the Chinese government, one of the hidden behind the scenes officials and he's informed me several times over dinner that the war with Taiwan would be over very, very quickly, before the US Navy could even intervene. Any war will end within the first few days as the first part of the Chinese attack will be an all-out missile/artillery barrage on the island, primarily targeting ROC cities, military installations, airports, seaports, etc.

Just curious, are you from China? I wouldn't fear the Chinese submarine fleet. My reasons are that their best sub is the Han class (you have 5 of them) they are the only SSN in the PLAN. It is a very bad sub made out of early 1960's technology. I'd rather have the Nautilus or a November class (well maybe Victor I) then the very loud Han class that has made US sub sonarmen have hearing problems (not really, but that is an old US Navy joke about China)
The rest of the fleet is the Ming and Song class, basically copies of the Russain 1950's diesel sub class Romeo and that was based off of German U-boats in WWII so the Chinese navy has size, but they wouldn't detect the USS Seawolf, or any Virginia or 688 class boats. The US Navy would just be doing actions that are easier then what they drill for. They also have some old Russian Whiskeys, Romeos, and Foxtrots
Now the only thing I'd be scared of is the 3 or 4 Kilos China has. They are quiet, but nothing against the black hulled monsters of the US Navy.
As for the straight. A few CVBGs would be able to destroy any amphibious ability that the PLAN has. Once the cruisers launch TASMs and the Tomcats, Hornets, or JSFs launch their Harpoons, the Chinese Navy is dead
IDF, if you bothered reading the news, the Chinese are designing numerous submarines along with negotiating with the Russians for the purchase of some additional Kilos as well as Akulas for their fleet. In addition, with such warships as the Sovremenny class destroyer, along with plans to build more, the PLAN is not to be spited.

For information, check here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/subs.pdf) for information on the PLAN Submarine forces.

The Chinese government and the people understands the economic price of a war with Taiwan and it is quite willing to accept the price only if Taiwan declares independence. My uncle happens to be a high level official in the Chinese government, one of the hidden behind the scenes officials and he's informed me several times over dinner that the war with Taiwan would be over very, very quickly, before the US Navy could even intervene. Any war will end within the first few days as the first part of the Chinese attack will be an all-out missile/artillery barrage on the island, primarily targeting ROC cities, military installations, airports, seaports, etc.
I'm not so sure. China's amphibious abilities are only able to carry 15,000 troops currently. The Taiwanese have lots of modern weaponry, and can probably defeat an air assault, and definitly defeat a naval blocade. The best option would be a nuclear strike, but that'd launch WWIII.

Well the Taiwanese in any war lacks complete depth. With massed missile and artillery strikes, the Chinese could quite possibly annilihate Taiwanese defenses within the first couple of days. In addition, with the variety of submarines that the Chinese have purchased, built, and/or designing, it will be able to launch sea-launched missile strikes from virtually anywhere.

Well the Taiwanese in any war lacks complete depth. With massed missile and artillery strikes, the Chinese could quite possibly annilihate Taiwanese defenses within the first couple of days. In addition, with the variety of submarines that the Chinese have purchased, built, and/or designing, it will be able to launch sea-launched missile strikes from virtually anywhere.
We're talking of non nuclear artillery, right?

The Taiwanese Navy has better surface ships and much better planes. The PLA-AF would get slaughtered quickly.

The surface navy of Taiwan is very good and would match the PLAN, but ROC lacks the good sub force, but if US subs get there, the PLAN will have problems as they can't detect an LA let alone the more advanced sub classes. If a US CVBG gets there, just one would alone be able to destroy the whole PLAN amphibious abilities. The US did the Summer Pulse 2004 wargames where they showed they can quickly get 7 of 12 CVBGs to any spot real quickly, and we always have at least 1 carrier there all the time. Not to mention USAF support from bases around the Pacific and we'd send some more planes. I don't think the PLAN can move enough troops over to ROC to win a war.

Also the PRC government is really miscalculating the economic effects. If they attack the ROC, we'd keep all oil out of China. The military would just come to a dead halt along with the economy when we stop your power.

Despite the chest thumping, the mainland would be particularly reluctant to use nuclear weapons on fellow chinese. However, should they do just that, the US would not follow suit. The game is just not worth a regional nuclear war and both Washington and Bejing know that far better than most of us.

Despite the chest thumping, the mainland would be particularly reluctant to use nuclear weapons on fellow chinese. However, should they do just that, the US would not follow suit. The game is just not worth a regional nuclear war and both Washington and Bejing know that far better than most of us.

correct, it wouldn't go nuclear, the ROC are still Chinese and the PRC could never order a nuclear strike on them.

A little interesting article I found.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040907-navy-ships.htm

I BTW, to give you an idea of our navy currently, the US has twelve aircraft carriers. In a distant second is Britain with three, but they are all light carriers, as are all of the other nations with them (which have one each). Plus, our amphibious landing ships can double as light aircraft carriers. Do we really need more power projection capabilities?

Wrong, France has 2 for the moment, The Charles the Gaulle is like the Nimitz class, only much more modern and here sistership is under construction now, wich will give France 2 real heavies, the older Clemencau will be dismantled then.

Just wanted to add this small correction.

Wrong, France has 2 for the moment, The Charles the Gaulle is like the Nimitz class, only much more modern and here sistership is under construction now, wich will give France 2 real heavies, the older Clemencau will be dismantled then.

Just wanted to add this small correction.
So they do have two. I wasn't sure if they had one or two. But other than France, the UK, and the US, there are no nations with more than one aircraft carrier. In fact, it's a short list: Thailand, Brazil, Spain, Italy, India, Russia, and maybe a couple of others. Nearly all of them are light carriers.

Actually, isn't the Russian carrier really a mix between a cruiser and a carrier or something like that?

The Taiwanese Navy has better surface ships and much better planes. The PLA-AF would get slaughtered quickly.

The surface navy of Taiwan is very good and would match the PLAN, but ROC lacks the good sub force, but if US subs get there, the PLAN will have problems as they can't detect an LA let alone the more advanced sub classes. If a US CVBG gets there, just one would alone be able to destroy the whole PLAN amphibious abilities. The US did the Summer Pulse 2004 wargames where they showed they can quickly get 7 of 12 CVBGs to any spot real quickly, and we always have at least 1 carrier there all the time. Not to mention USAF support from bases around the Pacific and we'd send some more planes. I don't think the PLAN can move enough troops over to ROC to win a war.

Also the PRC government is really miscalculating the economic effects. If they attack the ROC, we'd keep all oil out of China. The military would just come to a dead halt along with the economy when we stop your power.
You do realize that China has the Su-27 aka the J-11, right? Arguably its better than anything in the US arsenal, able to outturn any American aircraft along with missiles. It is much better than ROC's Mirage 2000-5 and the F-16 Block 20 MLUs. In addition, China is also operating the J-10, supposedly a variant of the Israeli Lavi, with capabilities equal to the early versions of the F/A-18. At the same time, China has announced a plan to purchase Su-30s from Russia.

China operates numerous destroyers including the deadly Russian built Sovremenny Class Destroyer along with the indigenous Luhai Class.

Despite the chest thumping, the mainland would be particularly reluctant to use nuclear weapons on fellow chinese. However, should they do just that, the US would not follow suit. The game is just not worth a regional nuclear war and both Washington and Bejing know that far better than most of us.
Actually, China has long stopped any threats of nuclear retaliation if Taiwan declares independence.

Actually, China has long stopped any threats of nuclear retaliation if Taiwan declares independence.
That's good. Using nukes would automatically gurantee a nuclear response from the US, and it probably destroy much of China's east coast, and kills tens, if not hundreds of millions.

on the aircraft issue, the deciding factor in an air battle won't be who has the best plane, but who has the best recon.

The US would win hands down. The reason can be summed up in the AWACs. With the command structure based around there a group of US fighters would be able to safely engage Chinese fighters at over 115nm with Phoenix missiles and the Chinese wouldn't even know they were fired on in most cases.

The Su-27 isn't that great of a plane. The MiG-29 is better and Gulf War 1 showed us how good that plane is. Aegis would also allow US cruisers and DDGs to shoot down hundreds of fighters while they themselves remain safe.

Back to sea, the Russian carriers: They had a cruiser carrier combination that they sold to India, but the Kuznetsov is a full carrier, but it is still small.

As for the Sovremmeny DDG, the Chinese only have a few of them and they are no match for the Arleigh Burke DDGs (we have about 50 now with more being built)

Five Civilized nations, I have one question I want you to answer. Would China attack an ROC that declares independence if the US were to cut off all oil supplies to China and end up starving the military and economy in the end when US military intervention can make it costly and even a loss for the Chinese?

I'm just curious to try and get the Chinese mindset on this scenario.

IDF, if you bothered reading the news, at this present time, the United States will be very hard pressed not to enter into a conflict with the People's Republic of China over the Taiwan issue. Even if the United States moves in, the mobbing tactics of over a hundred Chinese conventional and nuclear submarines against any carrier battle group will result in the annilihation of that battle group.

In addition, even though radar is good and all, it is a two-edged sword that can work against and with the user. Radar emissions can be detected farther than the range of the radar itself. In addition, Aegis capable vessels do not carry enough missiles in their magazines to be a hundred percent foolproof. If the Chinese launch a missile attack either from their warships or their aircraft, the Americans will suffer pretty heavily.

In addition, the Chinese has a lot of stuff that the Americans don't know about. My uncle has dropped quite a few hints about China's own abilities, the most substantial being that China has gotten quite a bit of technology from the Israelis, who get it from the Americans...

I think the U.S. should have kept up its programme for a 600 ship Navy.

This is the 1st of new Charles De Gaulle class carriers (second under construction).The older Clemencau will be dismantled or in reserve when ready.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/

Different then the small Russian and small English carriers,like the Nimitz class ships but more moderen/recent.
.