What's new

The End of American Naval Supremacy?

rana shamsher

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
118
Reaction score
-1
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
e81f1d86961e6ee1ea4684dbdd0d1924.jpg

One of the most depressing things when I first went to Iraqi Kurdistan in the year 2000 was that while so many Iraqis understood that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s wars and decisions had frozen them in time, few truly understood the exponential advance of the rest of the world. Fourteen years ago, for example, students at Sulaimani University were still learning BASIC in their computer classes and faculty trained in the East Bloc had little concept of email let alone the Internet.

So it seems to be the case with the United States and our military planners now. Four days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel spoke of how American forces would soon be at pre-World War II numbers. Sequestration will force a further retraction. Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, U.S. Navy (retired) has noted that he commanded more ships in the Pacific Ocean during the Carter administration than exist in the entire U.S. Navy today. Whereas Democrats and Republican administrations both once sought the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously, the Pentagon now would have trouble mustering forces for one such conflict. This, of course, would be an open invitation for rogues and adversaries to take action while the United States is down or distracted. Enemies don’t take a pause just because Congress does. China most certainly has not.

Since World War II, the Navy has provided the backbone of America’s military strength, enabling the projection of force across the globe. And the aircraft carrier is the pride of the Navy, a veritable floating city and an immense system melding people with technology. This is certainly the case with the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s newest carrier officially launched this past November, and the first of the new, post-Nimitz Class carrier. The Navy has invested more than $12 billion in the Ford and its new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. If carriers have a lifespan of 50 years (assuming the Pentagon can conduct regular maintenance and overhauls), then will the Ford last until 2064?

Not if China has its way. China’s economic health and internal stability might be exaggerated, but its military build-up is not. China doesn’t try to do everything the U.S. military can do, but it has instead concentrated on negating America’s strengths while pursuing its own, for example, with hypersonic aircraft. The Chinese make no secret of their work to develop anti-satellite weaponry, but it is their work to develop carrier-killer missiles that should really frighten Congress and American military planners. Imagine: a single hypersonic missile that can sink a ship carrying 5,000 Americans without any efficient defense. Like a car accident in slow motion, it appears that defense and naval analysts acknowledge the problem but yet the United States appears unable or unwilling to invest in what is necessary to counter the threat. Instead, as the Chinese continue todevelop and deploy the missile, the Chuck Hagel defense simply seems to be stay beyond the range of the missile, effectively ceding Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and most of Southeast Asia to a Chinese sphere of influence.

It’s not just the carrier-killer missile which is a problem. This past June, the National Defense University released a report charting China’s continuing progress developing new, faster, and more precise cruise missiles. The authors note:

The potentially supersonic speed, small radar signature, and very low altitude flight profile of cruise missiles stress air defense systems and airborne surveillance and tracking radars, increasing the likelihood that they will successfully penetrate defenses.

Continuing to outline the report, The Diplomat explains:

Moreover, cruise missiles can be produced cheaply, allowing China to acquire large quantities of them. This is important because it could allow the PLA to exploit simple arithmetic in overcoming U.S. and allied missile defense systems. That is, the PLA could launch enough cruise missiles to simply overwhelm existing missile defense systems. Indeed, the report states Beijing believes that cruise missiles possess a 9:1 cost advantage over defenses against them. Thus, the PLA might exploit a quantity over quality approach, the exact opposite of the kind of force structure the U.S. military has outlined for its future. “Employed in salvos, perhaps in tandem with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles could saturate defenses with large numbers of missiles arriving at a specific target in a short time,” the report notes.

On September 10, China’s official television’s Xinwen Live News program discussed and described new work on China’s C802A and C602 anti-ship cruise missiles:

Senior Guan told us that the gross weight of this missile is only about one ton, but it can hit targets more than a hundred kilometers away and can quickly hit and sink or seriously damage 3,000-ton battleships. Does this small missile really have such great power?

[Guan Shiyi,missile expert from the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation] This is because the warhead has a characteristic, which is called armor-piercing explosion. It will pierce through first and then explode inside the warship. Therefore, its kill effect is very good.

There is a serious problem when adversaries develop technologies to neutralize the next generation of America’s Navy even before that generation is fully deployed. The United States has not lost a carrier in battle since World War II. Ignoring problems or convincing ourselves that the unthinkable will not happen, or believing that diplomacy can neutralize the vulnerability, is policy malpractice. Not only does it waste tens of billions of dollars but it puts the lives of American servicemen at risk and the security of America’s allies.

Perhaps it’s time to ask Secretary Hagel what he sees the second-order effects of losing uncontested naval supremacy might be, whether he sees uncontested naval supremacy as a worthwhile goal, and, if so—nothing can be taken for granted in the age of Obama—how the United States will maintain its naval supremacy in the face of Chinese anti-ship cruise and carrier killer missile developments.
 
I recommend the US spend 2 trillion dollars a year on its navy alone and ignore China at the same time, because, wait I don't want to use the wrong words here, I quote "China’s economic health and internal stability might be exaggerated," I mean not only are we not economically sound, but also unstable, we are the soviet union 2.0.

Also, this "would be an open invitation for rogues and adversaries to take action while the United States is down or distracted."

Cause apparently the world's biggest trading nation and the nation to receive the most foreign leaders is what was the name? Rogue state.


BTW, he's also wrong, China's naval strategy changes all the time, with the soon introduction of type 055, 095, 001a, 002, and other warships, fighters, as well as other weapon systems, the Chinese strategy will turn anti access to winning wars in neutral territory.

I mean if all we are doing is win local wars, why build cruisers, carriers and new nuclear subs, and other things.
 
Chinese multi dimensional approach with a lot of careful thinking and successful developing micro counters for mega objects is phenomenal. America is already on path of slow death which is inflicted most furiously in Afghanistan. China has judged very well and mr putin is acting very intelligently and both are multiplying each other. There is hardly remaining rome for mr america.
 
America enjoys naval supremacy in considerable part because it has completely free and unlimited (warm water yearround) access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific (not talking about the Arctic), the most important oceans.

How many oceans does China have access to? Let's look at a map: only one and that access is not free (hence the disputes about Taiwan, Senkaku Islands etc)

How many oceans does Russia have access to? Let's look at a map: two but only one access is free (which is why the Kuril Islands are so important for Russia: free yearround access to the Pacific).

How many oceans does Europe have access to? Let's look at a map: two.

How many oceans does India have access to? Let's look at a map: one.

The USA is the only country in the world which has this advantage: completely free, year round access to the 2 most important oceans.

Thinking that any other power will displace the USA on the water is ridiculous for geographical reasons alone.
 
This whole story has nothing new. Having hundreds/thousands of cruise missiles to overwhelm a defense was talked about in the 1980's. It didn't take much to figure that out.

Anti-ship missiles have been a serious threat since then too (ask the British in the Falklands). Even a swarm of '80s Exocets would overwhelm todays ship defenses.

Tell us something new.
 
One of the most depressing things ....

yadayada

...how the United States will maintain its naval supremacy in the face of Chinese anti-ship cruise and carrier killer missile developments.
Source The End of American Naval Supremacy? « Commentary Magazine

This is related and worth a read.

Is America's Naval Supremacy Sinking? - Forbes

The $7 billion dollar warship built to maintain American naval supremacy over China in the 21st Century | Daily Mail Online

Pro: A new breed of super-carriers will boost U.S. naval supremacy | GazetteXtra
The real question is not whether aircraft carriers are floating relics but how can the nation not afford to invest in a fleet of new super-carriers?
 
U.S naval supremacy is unmatched for the next decade or two.
can China or Russia send an armada to the America's and sustain it??? I don't think sooooooo

we control the oceans
get use to it

not since the Pacific War have we been challenged in this area.
 
not so soon. With 60 nuclear submarines, ~70 aegis warships, 10 super carriers and thousands of aircrafts, they will be still on top even in 2040. Though yes they may not control some areas like in past for eg south China sea and near bys.
 
U.S naval supremacy is unmatched for the next decade or two.
can China or Russia send an armada to the America's and sustain it??? I don't think sooooooo

we control the oceans
get use to it

not since the Pacific War have we been challenged in this area.
I think the point it that they don't need to match the US navy in order to deny it supremacy, atleast in certain areas. That is where the relevance of e.g. guided anti-ship ballistic missiles and long range hypersonic missiles lies.
 
U.S naval supremacy is unmatched for the next decade or two.
can China or Russia send an armada to the America's and sustain it??? I don't think sooooooo

we control the oceans
get use to it

not since the Pacific War have we been challenged in this area.

We are.

silkroad.jpg
 
Military might - a very fragile thing, and there are enough examples in history when the world's leading maritime power was losing its dominance in a fairly short period of time. Spain, Holland, Venice, the British Empire, the Soviet Union - examples of this.
 
All these 'America's going down' speculation articles seem to assume that the U.S. just sits there while being shot at. :usflag:
 
All these 'America's going down' speculation articles seem to assume that the U.S. just sits there while being shot at. :usflag:


Dude it is relative decline.

If you have 100,000 dollars in wealth and then get to 150,000 dollars BUT your neighbour has 200,000 dollars and then gets to 200,000 dollars then relatively you have declined.
 
If you have 100,000 dollars in wealth and then get to 150,000 dollars BUT your neighbour has 200,000 dollars and then gets to 200,000 dollars then relatively you have declined.

Read it again. :) Neighbour seems to be stagnating.
 
Relative decline indeed. Flattops aside, the Arleigh Burke-class is planned to be the third most numerous class of destroyer to serve in the U.S. Navy, after the Fletcher and Gearing classes; besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged, for a total of 104 of these 8,000-10,000 ton fld ships. Plus a 3 Zumwalts of 15,000 ton fld and at least 17 LCS (9 Freedom variant and 8 Independence variant) of about 3,000 tons fld.

64c4cb5022001081920a7c067144dfd7.gif
 

Back
Top Bottom