Ground/Sea warfare thread

[Coota0]

Interesting article on Chinese Naval buildup.

[kalvasflam]

Interesting article on Chinese Naval buildup.

Bah, you just can't buy a navy. PRC is a long way from a world power in that are. They're a regional power, but that's about it.

[Mislovrit]

As a global power they're small fry in a big lake, as a regional power they're a big fish in a tiny pond.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Bah, you just can't buy a navy. PRC is a long way from a world power in that are. They're a regional power, but that's about it.

Agreed. They could buy 20 more Varyags but the kind of experience the USN had from 1942 to 2007 in operating carriers is something no money can buy.

[Nied]

As requestied by David I've switched the running discussion on military procurment from the Aricraft vs Super thread over here.

I do understand your particular point. But on the balance, when talking about economics, I don't think it's at all clear that the civilian arm of the government has a better understanding what would be best going forward. The more logical thing to have done perhaps is to fix a budget, and then let the service arms negotiate a solution based on their requirements. Instead of having every local congressman push for their piece of the military spending pie, that I think is where more of the waste comes from.

You could do that but as Noyhoser has pointed out you'd just be trading one kind of mismanagement for another. To use a more recent example (and one that I've used before) the Tomcat community kept the Navy from developing what could have been an excelent strike fighter by insisting that no one hang bombs on thier pretty F-14s.

Really the soloution for civilian mismanagement of the military is to elect better civilians, making a government organization less acountable to the poeple is never a way to cure mismanagement. Vote for better congresscritters, or donate money to elected officials and PACs that better represent your views. Otherwise I'm reminded of that old H.L. Mencken quote about people in a democracy getting the government they deserve.

[kalvasflam]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071108...gn_editors_ytop

Entertaining Yahoo article. It seems that the Chinese navy isn't made up of a bunch of idiots after all.... it's the public that's stupid. No surprises there.

The smart move is definitely subs, the operating budget for a carrier is immense, and then you'd have to throw in all the protection too. All in the name of power projection. Subs on the other hand costs money, but they're great for countering the ability to project power... area denial... heh heh.

[Warmaker]

Come on, there's this thing called "Anti-Submarine Warfare" Destroyers, ASW aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing can be a bane for submarines.

It's a little dance NATO's done with the Soviets for decades, and it wouldn't surprise me if the US Navy and Russian Navy would be playing the game again.

I've read in a military journal on how China wants carriers, but there's too many factors to make them useful and effective anywhere in the near future.

- Firstly, as you mentioned, COST. Carriers aren't cheap, even on the upkeep.

- Inexperience in naval aviation. This is a huge factor here. The US Navy for instance has been toying with the idea since before WWII (same with Britain's Royal Navy?). It has decades of experience in naval aviaton through numerous shooting conflicts (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc).

I'm not sure how the Chinese Gov't & Navy as a whole want a CV force, but they of course had some admirals really making a push for it, even purchasing one of the old Russian CV's to see a bit of "how it's done."

Edited November 9, 2007 by Warmaker

[eugimon]

from the articles i've read, the Chinese military is pretty ambivalent on the whole carrier thing. It's the chinese public who wants them as a status symbol... a kind of wanting to join the big boys club or something. apparantly, there's even grass root campaigns in china where people are donating money to a "buy us a carrier" fund.

but I agree, even if china does put together a "keeping it real fake" carrier, their lack of naval experience, plus the lack of real support ships, experienced fighter pilots and just crewing in general won't make them much of a threat. Besides, their ostensible military targets are so close to them anyways, there's no need for a carrier at this point.

[Phyrox]

As far as naval policy goes, subs are the smart money for China.

A carrier is impressive, but doesn't suit their needs...and they know it.

Carriers are all about power projection and Command of the Sea.

China has no need of that, and it would be a draining uphill battle to try and wrest naval dominance from the Western powers. Denying your "enemy" Command of the Sea in local areas that matter however, is a very viable strategy for the Chinese navy, and it is no surprise that this has been their policy for some time. The sub (both diesel and nuke) is an ideal weapons for this. The modern sub isn't invincible, but it is the best weapon for China's naval requirements.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Phyrox

[Warmaker]

Oh, BTW...

Happy Birthday United States Marines... 232 years!

Drank a bottle of water where I'm at in celebration

Semper Fidelis

[Uxi]

I know the Marine Corps refuses to bite onto the M4 carrot, and still does... thank goodness, IMO.

It wasn't for a lack of trying. They did some test cases with select units at Edson Range and the proportion of Unqs was much much higher. IIRC, the main problem was from 500, but there was also a much higher proportion of miss from 300. Just not enough barrel length and no way is the USMC ever dropping the 500 yard range. The M16A4 is the current iteration, mostly with the same acoutrements of the M4 (MWS and RIS). We were already seeing units with the M16A4 in Iraq in 2003 and it has now almost entirely superceded the older M16A2.

How very few bonafide Infantry Divisions there are.

That's because of your myopia as a Marine. It would be similar to asking where the Marine Armored Divisions are. Just not our thang. Mostly, though, the dedicated infantry division, mechanized of course, is a victim of Combined Arms. Even when we have complete

On another note is the US Navy. During the 80's Cold War, the Navy was at a strength of roughly 600 warships. Today? Less than 300! Every warship class has been cut down, but the only thing that has been maintained in improved strength are the Carriers.

3rd Marine Division was effectively disbanded outside of the headquarters group and a few key units in the same period. US Army went from 55 down to 36 active combat brigades and the national guard went from 55 to 39 combat brigades. We're supposed to be to 43 active combat brigades by the end of 2007 IIRC and they were considering going to 48 for 2008, so that end has already been on the uptick...

[Uxi]

Oh, BTW...

Happy Birthday United States Marines... 232 years!

Drank a bottle of water where I'm at in celebration

Semper Fidelis

Ah rah, Devil dogs.