USA vs China

[Nadiru]

I'm not sure how the US loses out with the Silk Road 2.0 thing....the trade that will go by rail will be cutting out trips around Africa and through the Suez if anything

Land freight is orders of magnitude more expensive than sea freight.

[Slant]

I'm not sure how the US loses out with the Silk Road 2.0 thing....the trade that will go by rail will be cutting out trips around Africa and through the Suez if anything

I guess I was taking it too literal. Silk road going straight from China to Europe in more or less a straight line. Think Southern Transib.

[Skroe]

In the very same Washington post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3e8_story.html

Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that China has specifically developed capabilities that counter U.S. strengths, including ballistic and cruise missiles that would help protect against U.S. aircraft.



and about that carrier killer ballistic missiles (I know that hitting carrier which moves very fast is a feat, that's why I said that they possess this technology which is admirable)

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/china...solete-2015-10

As Slant allued to, they play it up for money.

They always do. They absolutely detest Budget Control Act of 2011 / Sequestration.

The military always pleads poverty. It's highly political.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if you will keep telling yourself that the Westerners may be caught with their pants down. The whole world order is changing on our eyes. Let's accept that sooner than later. If the Chinese pull of the Silk Road 2.0 it will have dramatic consequences to the Bretton-Woods system which Americans developed after WW2. It will shift the trading from sea to land, and USA might be potentially cut off from the bloodstream.Not to mention that Chinese already started making institutions alternative to the IMF and WB, and most US allies like UK and Germany rushed to take part in this ivestment.

This shit again? Shift from sea to land? The Asian development bank? Really?

Oh brother....

[Deleted]

Your ignorance is so typical.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/the_...nance_partner/

http://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/fil...ad_final_2.pdf

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6e098274-5...#axzz3wD6xbLRM

[Kellhound]

In the very same Washington post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3e8_story.html

Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that China has specifically developed capabilities that counter U.S. strengths, including ballistic and cruise missiles that would help protect against U.S. aircraft.



and about that carrier killer ballistic missiles (I know that hitting carrier which moves very fast is a feat, that's why I said that they possess this technology which is admirable)

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/china...solete-2015-10

Nice that you skipped over the part where the US just had a carrier in the SCS.

The Chinese have never demonstrated the ability to hit a moving target at sea with the system, let alone a defended target. Hitting a stationary target that you know 100% its location is not that impressive (and that is all they have actually demonstrated the ability to do), and using several MRBMs that may trigger a full nuclear response isnt a very wise course of action (hence why the US and Russia never pushed to do it). Finding a moving target at sea is not easy. The USSR had numerous dedicated Radar and ESM satellites , plus a fleet of recon aircraft, just to try and locate the US carriers. China does not have near that targeting capability. Then there is the simple reality that most US DDGs are armed with several different ABMs that just need to knock it off course a little bit (they dont even need a hard kill), each ship has a SLQ-32 protective jammer, a detachment of EA-18s is on each carrier for further ECM capabilities.

[Deleted]

Nice that you skipped over the part where the US just had a carrier in the SCS.

The Chinese have never demonstrated the ability to hit a moving target at sea with the system, let alone a defended target. Hitting a stationary target that you know 100% its location is not that impressive (and that is all they have actually demonstrated the ability to do), and using several MRBMs that may trigger a full nuclear response isnt a very wise course of action (hence why the US and Russia never pushed to do it). Finding a moving target at sea is not easy. The USSR had numerous dedicated Radar and ESM satellites , plus a fleet of recon aircraft, just to try and locate the US carriers. China does not have near that targeting capability. Then there is the simple reality that most US DDGs are armed with several different ABMs that just need to knock it off course a little bit (they dont even need a hard kill), each ship has a SLQ-32 protective jammer, a detachment of EA-18s is on each carrier for further ECM capabilities.

Just lol.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...wer_Report.pdf

[Slant]

Just lol.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...wer_Report.pdf

Just saying, I've seen videos of German prototype anti-air turrets take out drones of about 2m length and meh... half a metre in diameter. They totally look the right size to be mounted on a ship, all you need to figure out is to take the ship's own movement into account. Something targetting computers can already do. I honest to god don't think a ballistic (no engine) missile (tiny flaps to badly steer?) is going to be much of a threat if the US doesn't want it to be.

[Csnyder]

Since it seems we are going to experience this confrontation sooner or later. Who do you think will win? Freedom of navigation atleast in South China sea is suspended - so US Navy can't waltz wherever they please anymore, and if China wanted to seize Taiwan the US can't do nothing like in the 90s during Taiwan crisis. What role Russia will have? Will she join US at the cost of Eastern Euros? or will she bundle with the Chinese to build Silk Road 2.0?

I think we are living in interesting times where USA is losing its hegemony and new world order arises. Will this transition happen "peacefully" like British-American handling of power or will it lead to confrontation?

Australia which prosperity depends on China,and security depends on USA decided to stick with USA. Pretty much one can say similar thing about Japan. What about India and other nation?

I'm interested to read your opinions on this.

what do our opinions matter on this? where do you get your info? what does this have to do with gaming?

[Tierbook]

Just saying, I've seen videos of German prototype anti-air turrets take out drones of about 2m length and meh... half a metre in diameter. They totally look the right size to be mounted on a ship, all you need to figure out is to take the ship's own movement into account. Something targetting computers can already do. I honest to god don't think a ballistic (no engine) missile (tiny flaps to badly steer?) is going to be much of a threat if the US doesn't want it to be.

As soon as it's launched we'd have it trajectory mapped and would start using kinetic means to take it out I imagine.

[Slant]

As soon as it's launched we'd have it trajectory mapped and would start using kinetic means to take it out I imagine.

Yeah, I have no idea why someone would think this a threat. Heck, Israel does this with their iron dome. On RPGs and mortar shells, for crying out loud. Look at those videos, I can't even see what they're hitting that's how small it is and they seem to have a fantastically high success rate in hitting those slugs.

[Kellhound]

Just lol.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Doc...wer_Report.pdf

I read it when it came out, it challenges nothing of what I said. China has improved over the years, but it still is nothing compared to the ASuW capability of the USSR.

[Deleted]

I read it when it came out, it challenges nothing of what I said. China has improved over the years, but it still is nothing compared to the ASuW capability of the USSR.

I dunno men, according to this piece it's the US that have to worry more about upgrading the hardware.Oh and i will link you the quote about capabilites from this report just soon enough.In the meantime Happy read.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...ia-china-14590

Revealed: U.S. Warships Dangerously Outgunned by Russia and China

The U.S. Navy’s strategy desperately requires a new ship-launched anti-ship missile as enemy surface warships greatly “out stick” American warships. But as a stopgap solution, the Navy could modify the trusty Tomahawk cruise missile for anti-ship work.

Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Navy has essentially taken sea control for granted. Absent a challenge from a peer-level blue water threat, the service neglected anti-ship capabilities and focused on land attack. Indeed, as former Navy official Byran McGrath, managing director of The FerryBridge Group naval consultancy and deputy director of the Center for American Seapower at Hudson Institute testified before Congress this week, the service has not added a single ship that can fire anti-ship missiles since 1999.

“No ship in our inventory can disable another ship with its organic weapons at ranges greater than approximately 70 miles (the range of the Harpoon missile), and no ship has been added to the inventory since 1999 that can fire the Harpoon missile,” McGrath said. “In order to raise the level of conventional deterrence represented in our forward deployed surface vessels, the Navy must move quickly to close this gap. The pursuit of an elegant solution for the future should not preclude the immediate fielding of useful weapons available on the world market.”

Meanwhile, Russian, Chinese and Indian warships are fielding long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles like the Brahmos and 3M-54T (SS-N-27A Sizzler) that are difficult to intercept and pose an increasing danger to the U.S. fleet. McGrath suggested that one immediate solution to the problem is to convert the U.S. Navy’s existing arsenal of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLAM) into dual capable weapons with the addition of an anti-surface mode. The Tomahawk cruise missile would have a range of about 1000 nautical miles in an anti-ship role. “This single act will bring the most return on investment the fastest, and will guarantee that both the Flight III DDG (Arleigh Burke-class) and the DDG 1000 (Zumwalt-class) are also capable of firing this extended range surface to surface missile,” McGrath said.

However, there are concerns that while the Tomahawk would be effective against many threats, there are enemy vessels out there that are equipped with formidable air defenses where the missile would fall short. “Some analysts believe that against the most capable air defense units in potential adversary fleets, the subsonic TLAM will lack necessary capability,” McGrath said. “It must be remembered however, that not all adversary platforms are that capable, and the most capable units can be targeted and neutralized by other portions of the fleet architecture.”

Modifying the Tomahawk is only a short-term solution; the Navy needs a new missile to deal with future threats. “The Navy must move quickly to specify the requirements for a 21st century ASuW weapon or weapons—but without allowing this process to delay the TLAM modification,” McGrath said. “Commonality between air and surface missiles should be a goal but not a requirement that delays fielding. This missile must be capable against the world’s most advanced defense systems, and should be targetable against fixed and moving targets, at sea and ashore.”

While the Navy needs a next-generation missile, it will take time to develop such a weapon. The service does not have time to wait into the late 2020s to field an anti-ship missile. “Congress should direct the Navy to fast track this [Tomahawk missile modification with desired deployment in the early 2020’s,” McGrath said. “However, thinking that the TLAM modification solves the ASuW problem in the long term is incorrect. A new missile with advanced characteristics is required.”

[Marcellus1986]

Why are people still responding to this troll? It's increasingly obvious what he's doing. Hence why he's handwaving so much that it would make Shalcker look tame by comparison.

[Tierbook]

Why would we need more missile ships when we have more like 27 Ticonderoga class cruisers.... to say nothing of the ungodly number of destroyers we have. Hell the Zumwalt's cannons have a range of 70miles, up to 85miles depending on ammo, to say nothing of missiles.

[Kellhound]

I dunno men, according to this piece it's the US that have to worry more about upgrading the hardware.Oh and i will link you the quote about capabilites from this report just soon enough.In the meantime Happy read.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...ia-china-14590

Yet the USN has 62 Burke Class DDGs with 90-96 VLS cells and 22 Tico CGs with 122 VLS cells. Each cell can house a SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, VL-ASROC, or Tomahawk missile. The SM-2 and SM-6 have a proven ASuW capability, especially the SM-6 which can cause a 3,000 ton target frigate to sink with a single hit. The SM-6 is a Mach 3.5 missile with over 70 mile ASuW range. What that means is a single Flight IIa Burke can carry 96 supersonic anti-aircraft/anti-ship missiles. Your article is, in fact, out of date. Plus, the primary ASuW platform of the USN is its carrier strike fighters. Plus there is the simple fact that you cant shoot at ships you cant locate, and surface ships can only locate other ships with organic sensors out to about 30nm.

Oh, and the US has 2 new Burkes fitting out and 5 with keels laid. Plus the Zumwalt conducting sea trials and 2 more under construction. Thats 10 destroyers that will be commissioned in the next five years of 9000 to 14000 tons displacement.