|
Dietrich posted:Either way we should spend more money on aircraft carriers obviously. I know this will probably come back to bite me in the rear end, but was your remark meant to be sarcastic?
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
OhYeah posted:I know this will probably come back to bite me in the rear end, but was your remark meant to be sarcastic? It seems to me that the Chinese armed forces are paper tigers who's only real capability lies in keeping their population in check and will seriously be strained now that China's 10% yr/yr growth has all but stalled out and the 900 million Chinese who got left off the economic improvement boat realize what's up but maybe that's just what I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:It seems to me that the Chinese armed forces are paper tigers who's only real capability lies in keeping their population in check and will seriously be strained now that China's 10% yr/yr growth has all but stalled out and the 900 million Chinese who got left off the economic improvement boat realize what's up but maybe that's just what I want to believe. A paper tiger that could, on a whim, level the important parts of Taiwan and poo poo out hundreds of missiles at any ship in the straits with the push of a few buttons. Even if their momentum peters out after a few days, weeks or months, that's still a tremendous amount of destructive power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:It seems to me that the Chinese armed forces are paper tigers who's only real capability lies in keeping their population in check and will seriously be strained now that China's 10% yr/yr growth has all but stalled out and the 900 million Chinese who got left off the economic improvement boat realize what's up but maybe that's just what I want to believe. Possibly. I do think that the Navy needs some plussing up. LCS is a disaster. The new program which is LCS++, will be kinda crappy as well. I'm under the impression that other than the Ohio replacement stuff subs are ok. Surface has a lot of issues, some of which will require more hulls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:It seems to me that the Chinese armed forces are paper tigers who's only real capability lies in keeping their population in check and will seriously be strained now that China's 10% yr/yr growth has all but stalled out and the 900 million Chinese who got left off the economic improvement boat realize what's up but maybe that's just what I want to believe. This is exactly how I feel as well. The Chinese have so many problems domestically that their armed forces are not much of a concern to me. The 10% yr/yr growth becomes less impressive, for example, when you learn that if GDP growth falls beneath 7%, the economy in China is static or contracting. This is because 7% of the Chinese GDP is consumed with paying the costs of the huge environmental/health damage they've inflicted upon themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:It seems to me that the Chinese armed forces are paper tigers who's only real capability lies in keeping their population in check and will seriously be strained now that China's 10% yr/yr growth has all but stalled out and the 900 million Chinese who got left off the economic improvement boat realize what's up but maybe that's just what I want to believe. They are a joke now, but that's no reason to rest on our laurels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:A paper tiger that could, on a whim, level the important parts of Taiwan and poo poo out hundreds of missiles at any ship in the straits with the push of a few buttons. Even if their momentum peters out after a few days, weeks or months, that's still a tremendous amount of destructive power. Sure, at the cost of becoming an international pariah, losing their maritime-based trade lanes and whatever the US and other allies launch against mainland China in response
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Even a mildly competent military could be seriously effective in a scenario with as many operational and strategic advantages as the Chinese have in the western Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I've said it before but war is bad for business, and that's something the Chinese and their leadership simply can't afford. Their whole idea of society hinges upon growth through stability ("harmony").
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Assuming they don't succumb to numerous crippling environmental, social or economic problems first Actually I think they're going to start flailing when the nosedive starts gaining speed. ManifunkDestiny posted:Sure, at the cost of becoming an international pariah, losing their maritime-based trade lanes and whatever the US and other allies launch against mainland China in response Said everyone in 1913 and 1938. And about a thousand other times in history. A LOT of wars start between major trade partners. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
NM
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DMn4PmiDeQ This is a pretty good lecture on why a conflict with China in the medium-term future isn't completely unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:14
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Sure, at the cost of becoming an international pariah, losing their maritime-based trade lanes and whatever the US and other allies launch against mainland China in response So youre telling me we would go to war against a near superpower nation that annexed nearby maritime lands it had a tenuous historical claim to?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
That Works posted:So youre telling me we would go to war against a near superpower nation that annexed nearby maritime lands it had a tenuous historical claim to? Well, considering that last year Obama made it official US policy that the Senkakus are covered under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Actually I think they're going to start flailing when the nosedive starts gaining speed. That's true, but you also have to admit that the current situation is pretty unqiue. We've never had such a high level of globalization in the history of mankind before. You can't really compare the beginning of the 20th century with today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:That's true, but you also have to admit that the current situation is pretty unqiue. We've never had such a high level of globalization in the history of mankind before. You can't really compare the beginning of the 19th century with today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
That Works posted:So youre telling me we would go to war against a near superpower nation that annexed nearby maritime lands it had a tenuous historical claim to? Concern is a lot less "we might go to full scalre war with them!" than it is that if China has significant capabilities, we would pointedly not go to war and just let them bully our Pacific allies a hell of a lot more than they have dared in the past. A Raptor had another oops: 
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Have they domestically cloned the S-400 yet then? A friend of mine from Russia keeps insisting that they have a de facto alliance now with China, but I'm not sure if thats just improper wording or what. It sure as gently caress doesnt seem true in the conventional meaning of "alliance" at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Concern is a lot less "we might go to full scalre war with them!" than it is that if China has significant capabilities, we would pointedly not go to war and just let them bully our Pacific allies a hell of a lot more than they have dared in the past. Gear failure? Also, that photo is a great example of how gently caress-off HUGE modern fighters are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Report I read said brake fire on a landing gear, but it was from The Aviationist, which is really only good for cool pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Gear failure? Yeah. A hornet has a few feet on a B-25.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Have they domestically cloned the S-400 yet then? A friend of mine from Russia keeps insisting that they have a de facto alliance now with China, but I'm not sure if thats just improper wording or what. It sure as gently caress doesnt seem true in the conventional meaning of "alliance" at least. Russia doesn't have any allies, none that matter anyway. Syria and Iran. North-Korea. Wait, isn't this the new Axis of Evil (tm)? In any case, what could China possibly gain from the situation by allying themselves with Russia instead of remaining neutral and having close business ties with the Western world?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Yeah. A hornet has a few feet on a B-25. I looked it up: B-25: quote:Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.13 m) quote:Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.92 m)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
However, the B-25 can cross the international date line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:However, the B-25 can cross the international date line. And fly from a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
And really the B-25 has the F-22 beat in the RCS category too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
If a B-25 cost $100,000 per in 1943 (adjusted for today's dollars $1,369,863.01) you could buy 110 B-25s for one F-22 (If you assume a F-22 cost of 150 million.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Actually I think they're going to start flailing when the nosedive starts gaining speed. And in those circumstances they start when (like you said) poo poo starts nosediving for whatever reason and/or when a relatively minor flashpoint blows up into something major, often exacerbated by irrational forces like ethnic tensions. Good thing there's no flashpoints in the Western Pacific that involve China and US security treaty partners where (irrational) ethnic/cultural beliefs are the drivers of the tensions, and good thing we haven't explicitly stated that at least some of those flashpoints are directly covered under the mutual security treaties we have with those countries. I've expanded on this before a lot in this thread so I'll just give you the tl;dr version: US conventional military power in the Pacific isn't there to fight and win a war against China, because no one wins in that scenario. It's to provide enough stability and conventional deterrent posture that every morning Xi Jinping (or whoever within the PLA is really calling the shots) wakes up, looks out at the Taiwan Strait/East China Sea/South China Sea/wherever else and thinks, "today's not the day." Dandywalken posted:Have they domestically cloned the S-400 yet then? A friend of mine from Russia keeps insisting that they have a de facto alliance now with China, but I'm not sure if thats just improper wording or what. It sure as gently caress doesnt seem true in the conventional meaning of "alliance" at least. I don't think so. I'm assuming that's what the S-400 deal is for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
They do have some indigenious variants of the HQ-9 that would you could consider comparable with the S-400/PAC-3, but they are projects nobody really knows anything about so who knows if they actually work. You can bet those S-400s will get thoroughly looked at for the next HQ-?? variant they make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Question: any good recent analysis behind a paywall that you can recommend about the state of the Russian Air Force? I've heard that the training of pilots is seriously lacking when compared to top NATO countries, many of planes are grounded due to poor maintenance and lack of spares. I would like to read more about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Photo of the cleanest (by comparison) Bear I've ever seen. Full size here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:And really the B-25 has the F-22 beat in the RCS category too. Uh, no? EDIT: regarding China, they may have a lot of advantages in the west pacific, but we also have the combined militaries of Korea, Japan, Australia and so on, and all of their militaries are also growing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Uh, no?  if you think a Korean-Japanese joint operation is a thing that would ever happen in real life.Also, Australia is further away from China than the west coast of the United States, so they aren't super relevant. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If a B-25 cost $100,000 per in 1943 (adjusted for today's dollars $1,369,863.01) you could buy 110 B-25s for one F-22 (If you assume a F-22 cost of 150 million.) Funnier if you go with one of those §300/400/700 million figures for the F-22. Not that you'd actually get a modern production military B-25 for just $1.4 million. But a Beech G58 Baron... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, Australia is further away from China than the west coast of the United States, so they aren't super relevant. Don't think this is remotely true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Don't think this is remotely true. The West coast of the US is closer to China if you travel East, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
If you measure as the crow flies from Hainan to the mining regions of northwestern Australia, then no, it's not true. However the distance from China to the heavily populated parts of NSW and Victoria, where most Australians live, are indeed further, and doubly so if you're measuring the distance a ship sails since there are a bunch of islands in the way. e: actually I just measured it out and this only works if you're talking about ship routes e2: here are some distances Pearl River region to Sydney: 4k nm Harbin to Seattle: 4.1k nm Hainan to Sydney: 3.9k nm Head of Ussuri River to Seattle: 3.8k nm Hainan to Darwin: 2.2k nm Head of Ussuri River to coast of Washington: 3.7k nm Mortabis fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
It's a good thing that Australia only has naval bases on the part of Australia farthest from China then. waitaminute However, the point stands that Australia's power projection abilities are laughable compared with the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you measure as the crow flies from Hainan to the mining regions of northwestern Australia, then no, it's not true. However the distance from China to the heavily populated parts of NSW and Victoria, where most Australians live, are indeed further, and doubly so if you're measuring the distance a ship sails since there are a bunch of islands in the way. Sure, but even Hainan to Victoria is ~4000 KM less than Hainan to San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Veritek83 posted:Sure, but even Hainan to Victoria is ~4000 KM less than Hainan to San Francisco. I measured to different points within China: Hainan to NSW, Heilongjiang to Washington
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:14
|
|