What's new

25,000 Sailors, 50 Commands Across 22 Time Zones: US Navy & Marines Gear Up For Large Scale Exercise 2023 (6 Carriers)

Good luck

微信截图_20230731222930.png



JOSEPH TREVITHICKView Joseph Trevithick's Articles
PUBLISHED JUL 11, 2023 1:25 PM EDT
AU.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China's shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been circulating online.

U.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China's shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been circulating online.

ONI-PLAN-vs-USN-Force-Laydown-Slide-cropped.jpg


The most eye-catching component of the slide is a depiction of the relative Chinese and U.S. shipbuilding capacity expressed in terms of gross tonnage. The graphic shows that China's shipyards have a capacity of around 23,250,000 million tons versus less than 100,000 tons in the United States. That is at least an astonishing 232 times greater than the United States.

U.S.-based shipbuilding capacity was in decline even before the end of the Cold War, but steadily shrunk even more afterward. It is at a particularly low point, across the board, now.

The slide also includes a note about the relative "naval production % of overall national shipbuilding revenue" for each country, and that this is estimated to be over 70 percent in China. The stated estimated percentage for U.S. shipyards is clearly legible in the versions of the slide available online, but it appears to be 95 percent.

微信图片_20230731223410.png


The slide also includes projected sizes for the U.S. Navy and PLAN "battle forces" – defined as the total number of "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, [and] large combat support auxiliary ships" – for every five years between 2020 and 2035. It says that as of 2020, the PLAN had 355 battle force ships and the U.S. Navy had 296. By 2035, the gap between the figures for China (475) and the United States (305 to 317) widens substantially.

battle-force-size.jpg



China's People's Liberation Army Navy is already the largest in the world in terms of total vessels and is steadily acquiring a range of more modern and capable designs, including a growing fleet of aircraft carriers. The figures provided show the size gap between China's naval fleets and those of the United States only continuing to grow.

It is important to note up front that the slide presents estimates and projections, and that gauging shipbuilding capacity is a complex and multifaceted affair, in general. For instance, is unclear how the naval percentage of total shipbuilding revenue was calculated.

How ships are categorized can often be a point of debate, as well, though this often does not impact whether or not ships fall into a broader "battle force" definition. As a relevant example, the PLAN's Type 055 warships, its most modern and capable surface combatants, are typically described as destroyers. However, the U.S. Navy often refers to them as cruisers based on their displacement and other features.


The U.S. Navy itself has acknowledged that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) slide does not reflect a definitive data set and is, at least in part, a living document.
“The slide was developed by the Office of Naval Intelligence from multiple public sources as part of an overall brief on strategic competition," a U.S. Navy spokesperson told The War Zone. "The slide provides context and trends on China’s shipbuilding capacity. It is not intended as a deep-dive into the PRC [People's Republic of China's] commercial shipbuilding industry."

"It’s been iterated on over time and the unclassified sources used most recently were commercially-available shipbuilding data, publicly-available U.S. Navy long-range shipbuilding plans from the 2023 Presidential Budget (PB23), and the publicly-discussed approximate projected future PLAN [People's Liberation Army Navy] force," that spokesperson added.

With this in mind, it is worth pointing out that the slide's projections and estimates are heavily influenced by the inherently dual-purpose nature of China's state-run shipbuilding enterprise.

"PLAN surface ship producers are mixed military commercial" and "most PLAN-associated construction [is] completed in CSSC [China State Shipbuilding Corporation] facilities," the slide says. "China is the world's leading shipbuilder by a large margin" and the country "controls ~40% of [the] global commercial shipbuilding market."


This is certainly true and relevant to the emerging gap between the PLAN and U.S. Navy's battle force sizes. At the same time, it's not clear how much the U.S. shipbuilding capacity figures in the slide factored in commercial capacity. The commercial shipbuilding industry in the United States is far smaller and has less involvement in naval projects, overall, as well as not being subject to centralized state control.

Still, some examples do exist. U.S. shipbuilder General Dynamics NASSCO is a prime example, with its two main business areas being large commercial cargo and tanker ships and auxiliaries for the U.S. Navy. The design of the U.S. Navy's Lewis B. Puller class of seabase ships is derived directly from NASSCO's Alaska class oil tanker.

In addition, the slide's overall battle force figures do not directly line up with other official U.S. military data. The long-term shipbuilding plan that the U.S. Navy published in March 2019 indicated that the service would have 301 battle force vessels in the coming fiscal year. The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on Chinese military and security developments in 2020 put the respective Chinese and U.S. Navy battle force figures at 350 and 293.

The most recent report on China from the Pentagon, published last year, says that the PLAN's battle force inventory was 340 vessels in 2021. The U.S. Navy's long-term shipbuilding plan for the 2024 Fiscal Year, released earlier this year, says the service expects to have 293 vessels in its battle force in the upcoming fiscal cycle (which starts on October 1, 2023). That same document says that it could have as many as 320 or as few as 311 battle force vessels by Fiscal Year 2035 depending on what courses of action are pursued.

These discrepancies are relatively minor and do not change the fact that there is clearly a major and widening gap in battle force sizes between China and the United States. Still, they do highlight the complexities of comparative counting of naval inventories, which change regularly as older ships are decommissioned and new ones are brought into service, especially based on publicly available information. Beyond that, it is important to point out that a realistic accounting of China's naval forces is not limited to the PLAN.

In fact, last year, the Pentagon noted that the PLAN's battle force inventory had actually shrunk in 2021, but that this was due to the fact that 22 Type 056 corvettes had been transferred to the country's Coast Guard. These are 1,500-ton-displacement warships that, at least in PLAN service, had been armed with anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, among other weapons. That kind of armament is atypical of vessels in service with most other coast guards around the world, including the U.S. Coast Guard.

A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. <em>樱井千一 via Wikimedia</em>


A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. 樱井千一 via Wikimedia

A true discussion of China's current and future naval capacity would have to include at least some ships from its Coast Guard and a number of other nominally civilian maritime security agencies, as well as the country's substantial maritime militia.

微信图片_20230731223749.png


An unclassified graphic ONI published in 2022 showing the full breadth of Chinese 'naval' forces beyond just the PLAN.

The U.S. military has made its own moves in this regard in recent years. The U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Coast Guard notably put out a tri-service "naval forces" white paper in 2020. Since then, there has been a clear push to increase routine Coast Guard maritime operations abroad together with the Navy and independently. This has included sending Coast Guard ships to patrol in areas of the Pacific where China has extensive and largely unrecognized territorial claims, like the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

None of this necessarily changes the overall direction of the trend line. U.S. military officials, members of Congress, and naval experts have all been drawing attention to the widening gap in total size between the U.S. Navy and the PLAN, as well as concerns about shipbuilding capacity, for years now.

"They have 13 shipyards, in some cases their shipyard has more capacity – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined," Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told members of Congress at a hearing in February. "That presents a real threat."

Overall shipyard capacity has a massive impact on sustaining ships. The ONI slide now circulating online includes a note that "50+ dry docks can physically accommodate an aircraft carrier." The PLAN is working hard to increase the size of its carrier fleets and this also reflects yards that could be used to conduct work on other larger surface ships and submarines.

Shipyard capacity for sustainment of existing fleets is also something that has been a subject of great concern in the United States for some time now. After decades of cutting back on spending, the U.S. Navy has been trying to explore ways to alleviate those issues, including by modernizing its own remaining shipyards and expanding its use of commercial yards to conduct various types of often sensitive work. Reflecting the trend of shipbuilding capacity increasingly being found outside of the United States, the latter category could eventually include more foreign-owned and operated yards, including ones in Japan, too.

Shipbuilding is also a complex and costly affair that requires large amounts of skilled labor and resources, which can take significant time to source. Delays or other hiccups in shipbuilding, as well as repair and overhaul work that requires shipyard capacity, can easily cascade. This reality has manifested itself to an especially extreme degree for the U.S. Navy when it comes to submarine maintenance.

Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, the Navy's Program Executive officer for Attack Submarines, told reporters in November 2022 on the sidelines of the Naval Submarine League’s annual conference that 18 of the service's 50 attack submarines of all classes were undergoing or awaiting maintenance at that time. This is significantly higher than the service's target of having no more than 20 percent of all attack submarines down for maintenance at a time.

The Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise, which was first commissioned in 1992, has become an unfortunate poster child for these issues. Boise has been sitting pierside since 2017 and when it hopefully returns to active duty next year it will have spent around 20 percent of its entire career idle awaiting maintenance.

In addition, this reality has prompted major concerns with regard to the U.S. Navy's capacity, or lack thereof, to repair battle-damaged ships and get them back into service relatively rapidly in a major future conflict. The multi-day fire that gutted the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard while it was in port undergoing maintenance in 2020 reinvigorated discussions about the service's limited capacity to process damaged ships in an actual crisis. This has only been magnified by the increasing possibility of a major conflict in the Pacific.

"The Navy has not needed to triage and repair multiple battle-damaged ships in quick succession since World War II," the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said in a report published in 2021. “After the end of the Cold War, the Navy divested many of its wartime ship repair capabilities, and its ship maintenance capabilities have evolved to focus largely on supporting peacetime maintenance needs."

"However, the rise of 21st century adversaries," like China, "capable of producing high-end threats in warfare – referred to as great power competitors – revives the need for the Navy to reexamine its battle damage repair capability to ensure it is ready for potential conflict," the 2021 GAO report added.

A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.


A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.

In February, Navy Secretary Del Toro highlighted how the differences between a democratic United States and a totalitarian China come into play in this part of the equation.
“[W]hen you have unemployment at less than 4%, it makes it a real challenge whether you’re trying to find workers for a restaurant or you’re trying to find workers for a shipyard,” he explained. "They’re a communist country, they don’t have rules by which they abide by."

"They use slave labor in building their ships, right,” Del Toro also asserted. "That’s not the way we should do business ever, but that’s what we’re up against so it does present a significant advantage."

As a result, the U.S. Navy has often called into question the basic viability of trying to maintain parity with China on a quantitative level. The service's senior leadership has often argued against focusing solely on total numbers and for pursuing advanced and novel capabilities, including hypersonic weapons and uncrewed surface and underwater vessels, which will allow it to keep a qualitative edge.

"They [the PLAN] got a larger fleet now so they’re deploying that fleet globally,” Navy Secretary Del Toro said at the hearing in February. "We do need a larger Navy, we do need more ships in the future, more modern ships in the future, in particular, that can meet that threat."

"For us to pivot, under the budget line that we have right now, to pivot to a more lethal force, we need to give up some stuff," Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday, the Navy's top officer, told reporters in Febraury 2022. "And you can’t just look at it through the lens of surface VLS [vertical launch system] tubes."

Gilday was responding to a question about the U.S. Navy's plans to decommission its Ticonderoga class cruisers, each of which has 122 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells that can be loaded with various missiles. The ships typically carry a large load of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and represent a significant portion of the service's current surface-to-surface strike capacity.

All of this of course comes amid concerns about China's rising military capacity and capabilities, writ large, particularly within the context of a potential future intervention against Taiwan. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) could feel that is capable of succeeding in such a major operation by 2027, if not sooner. Of course, those same officials routinely stress that this does not mean that the government in Beijing is actively planning to act on any particular timeline.

Though The War Zone has not yet been able to confirm this, the shipbuilding slide appears to be from a larger ONI briefing intended for members of Congress that calls for more actively challenging Chinese ambitions over Taiwan and elsewhere. The briefing in question at least contains the same details about China's control of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and the number of drydocks it has that can fit an aircraft carrier as the unclassified slide that has been circulating online, according to a report last week from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

"'The survival of Taiwan’s democracy is a critical geostrategic issue that carries long-term consequences for China, the U.S., and the broader international community,' the ONI said, but 'the China problem is not all about Taiwan,' noting that all of China’s neighbors, both on land and sea, are facing military, economic and diplomatic pressures from Beijing which would be extremely hard to hold at bay individually," Air & Space Forces Magazine reported after obtaining a copy of this larger briefing. It "noted ten geographic areas where China is actively challenging borders and territory, and it is increasingly characterizing itself as an 'arctic nation' with rights to exploit resources in that area."

A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north toward the Arctic Region in 2021. <em>USCG</em>


A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north toward the Arctic Region in 2021. USCG

The briefing also reportedly at least contains the same details about China controlling 40 percent of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and having 50 drydocks big enough to fit an aircraft carrier as the unclassified slide that has been circulating online.

It also warns against China's use of "espionage, coercion, pressure, subversion, and disinformation" to "shape the international system" and otherwise gain global leverage, that report says.

“We are engaged in an international struggle between competing visions," the briefing, which carries the signature of ONI head Rear Adm. Mike Studemans, adds, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. "China is executing a grand strategy, and has been unified in pursuing it comprehensively and aggressively for many years."

When it comes to the Navy, in particular, ONI is clearly sounding the alarm anew that the startling disparity, which is still rapidly growing, in total fleet sizes and shipbuilding capacity between it and the PLAN is a major concern when it comes to the service's ability to help challenge the Chinese government's global ambitions.

 
American mission in Afghanistan was to eliminate Osama regime for 9/11, which is done.

Taliban groups were secondary targets and they have agreed to not support Al-Qaeda types in Doha Accords. This is defeat in your books? This was the condition to end the war, bro.

You are confusing a deal-based withdrawal for military defeat in Afghanistan. I do not recall Taliban groups defeating American troops in any battle, they were fighting ANA.

These Taliban groups are now creating problem for Pakistan. Focus on this part. If Pakistan had paid heed to American calls, Afghanistan would have been a different place today. But let's make subjective claims about American defeat.
Denial is understandable when humiliated:-
"

US 'lost' the 20-year war in Afghanistan: top US general"​

 
Denial is understandable when humiliated:-
"

US 'lost' the 20-year war in Afghanistan: top US general"​


These are subjective claims. Defeat is if you are made to surrender in a war.

Let's see.

Osama Bin Laden and his jihadi network is eliminated = check

Taliban groups have agreed to not allow Al-Qaeda types to plot attacks on American interests in Doha Accords = check

Biden administration scrapped the Intra-Afghan Dialogue and honor Doha Accords with Taliban groups.

This is not defeat but settlement in which US has eliminated a threat to its interests in the region.

Try to understand and comprehend.

Taliban groups have survived because Afghanistan is landlocked and they can find refuge in Iran and Pakistan. US was at a disadvantage in this matter. But US has concluded this war on acceptable terms for itself. This is an achievement.

Since Muslims in modern times have forgotten how to fight and win a war, they assume that others are incompetent like them as well.
 
I pointed out the obvious in following post:

US is not entrenched in a war with Russia but making sure that Russia will suffer heavy losses in Ukraine and will not be in the position to fight another war in a long time. Contrary to comedic perceptions of some members and missile photo posters on PDF, American war-machine is present in all oceans and ready to fight a war if called upon.

On topic: China is providing sophisticated technologies to DPRK so US has warned that it will prepare both South Korea and Japan to deal with this threat.



US is a superpower in true sense and its warfighting capacity is unmatched.

US fought lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and even opened fronts on the side like in Libya and Syria to eliminate its enemies but it is not exhausted.

Screenshot-2023-04-24-at-5.37.23-PM.png



@Mirzali Khan

Agree with your historical perspective but disagree with your future view. America had industrial might now that thing is with China. Except for dollar US don't have anything that only it can sell to the world.
 
Agree with your historical perspective but disagree with your future view. America had industrial might now that thing is with China. Except for dollar US don't have anything that only it can sell to the world.

Bro, US is revisiting and reviving its industrial base.

US was buying oil from the Middle East in older times but US produces its own oil today courtesy of the Shale Revolution in 2014.


Now China buys oil from the Middle East.



This is the reason for Arabs warming up to China, but even Arabs seem to understand that they cannot rely on oil exports to meet their needs in the future.

US is now aiming to revive its semiconductor industry with its Chips and Science Act (2022).



US is also reaching out to other countries such as Vietnam, Mexico, Malaysia, India, and Bangladesh to allow American companies to diversify their respective supply chains and reduce reliance on China in the process.

Chinese economy is slowing down lately.




Reasons include COVID-19 pandemic, tensions with US, and President Xi exerting too much control on domestic matters.

But US is looking forward to stimulate its economy with authentic efforts to revive its industrial base and tapping alternative markets.

US has institutions, democracy, and people who are rich and innovative. It is not like much of the Third World that is held back by coups, underdeveloped institutions, and unsustainable levels of borrowing from China among others.
 
Agree with your historical perspective but disagree with your future view. America had industrial might now that thing is with China. Except for dollar US don't have anything that only it can sell to the world.
Not only industrial base, but also large scale workforce, US can never have enough of them.It takes decades for workers to train and master their required skills.

How many people are building ships in China? Workers get off work in a privately owned shipyard

 
everything you said is right...

but little disagreement at bold part, just visit US and you'll see how badly their infrastructure need reconstruction and repair.

back to back wars had a great effect on people's lives.

wars created fewer jobs lack of spending public education and health care.

infrastructure such as roads and public transit were lacking funds.

financed by debt those war spending cause higher interest rates either it is business borrowers or homeowners.

school infrastructure did not grow at the pace it is required.

they talk about China rising so rapidly is only because they are finding it hard to keep pace with it.

so yes, they are exhausted and they have to re-pay a huge debt besides short and long interest on war borrowings and it will impact their future war preparations and adventures anymore.

they really need to take a break from it and they know it very well. these confrontations with China will just be chest thumping on both sides.

You have some valid observations. Modern-age conflicts are increasingly complex, hybrid, tedious, and costly to bankroll and conclude. Many countries are not equipped to fight a hybrid war on their own, and this is a actually good thing. Humanity needs to find a way to move forward by reducing conflicts.

US was able to topple regimes in several countries due to sheer size of its economy and military capability.

Nevertheless:


American debt system is not like that of developing countries and it will be manage to rebuild its industrial base.
 
Bro, US is revisiting and reviving its industrial base.

US was buying oil from the Middle East in older times but US produces its own oil today courtesy of the Shale Revolution in 2014.


Now China buys oil from the Middle East.



This is the reason for Arabs warming up to China, but even Arabs seem to understand that they cannot rely on oil exports to meet their needs in the future.

US is now aiming to revive its semiconductor industry with its Chips and Science Act (2022).



US is also reaching out to other countries such as Vietnam, Mexico, Malaysia, India, and Bangladesh to allow American companies to diversify their respective supply chains and reduce reliance on China in the process.

Chinese economy is slowing down lately.




Reasons include COVID-19 pandemic, tensions with US, and President Xi exerting too much control on domestic matters.

But US is looking forward to stimulate its economy with authentic efforts to revive its industrial base and tapping alternative markets.

US has institutions, democracy, and people who are rich and innovative. It is not like much of the Third World that is held back by coups, underdeveloped institutions, and unsustainable levels of borrowing from China among others.

Everybody is diversifying except for p, and this is all bcoz of behaviour of US. Even ME is looking for alternate markets as u said. So US is trying to move out from china but its companies work for profit and not patriotism. They will go for Vietnam India or Mexico than going back to US. Having making just chips won't solve the problem. The system they themselves made have almost eaten them. The US people have become too addicted to cheap goods and excessive consumption on credit. As long as dollar is being printed and is the being used for worldwide trade, the US can afford this luxury. Slowly countries like China India and others are moving out of this shackles. Once that become mainstream. US's game will be up.
 
Good luck

微信截图_20230731222930.png



JOSEPH TREVITHICKView Joseph Trevithick's Articles
PUBLISHED JUL 11, 2023 1:25 PM EDT
AU.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China's shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been circulating online.

U.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China's shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been circulating online.

ONI-PLAN-vs-USN-Force-Laydown-Slide-cropped.jpg


The most eye-catching component of the slide is a depiction of the relative Chinese and U.S. shipbuilding capacity expressed in terms of gross tonnage. The graphic shows that China's shipyards have a capacity of around 23,250,000 million tons versus less than 100,000 tons in the United States. That is at least an astonishing 232 times greater than the United States.

U.S.-based shipbuilding capacity was in decline even before the end of the Cold War, but steadily shrunk even more afterward. It is at a particularly low point, across the board, now.

The slide also includes a note about the relative "naval production % of overall national shipbuilding revenue" for each country, and that this is estimated to be over 70 percent in China. The stated estimated percentage for U.S. shipyards is clearly legible in the versions of the slide available online, but it appears to be 95 percent.

微信图片_20230731223410.png


The slide also includes projected sizes for the U.S. Navy and PLAN "battle forces" – defined as the total number of "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, [and] large combat support auxiliary ships" – for every five years between 2020 and 2035. It says that as of 2020, the PLAN had 355 battle force ships and the U.S. Navy had 296. By 2035, the gap between the figures for China (475) and the United States (305 to 317) widens substantially.

battle-force-size.jpg



China's People's Liberation Army Navy is already the largest in the world in terms of total vessels and is steadily acquiring a range of more modern and capable designs, including a growing fleet of aircraft carriers. The figures provided show the size gap between China's naval fleets and those of the United States only continuing to grow.

It is important to note up front that the slide presents estimates and projections, and that gauging shipbuilding capacity is a complex and multifaceted affair, in general. For instance, is unclear how the naval percentage of total shipbuilding revenue was calculated.

How ships are categorized can often be a point of debate, as well, though this often does not impact whether or not ships fall into a broader "battle force" definition. As a relevant example, the PLAN's Type 055 warships, its most modern and capable surface combatants, are typically described as destroyers. However, the U.S. Navy often refers to them as cruisers based on their displacement and other features.


The U.S. Navy itself has acknowledged that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) slide does not reflect a definitive data set and is, at least in part, a living document.
“The slide was developed by the Office of Naval Intelligence from multiple public sources as part of an overall brief on strategic competition," a U.S. Navy spokesperson told The War Zone. "The slide provides context and trends on China’s shipbuilding capacity. It is not intended as a deep-dive into the PRC [People's Republic of China's] commercial shipbuilding industry."

"It’s been iterated on over time and the unclassified sources used most recently were commercially-available shipbuilding data, publicly-available U.S. Navy long-range shipbuilding plans from the 2023 Presidential Budget (PB23), and the publicly-discussed approximate projected future PLAN [People's Liberation Army Navy] force," that spokesperson added.

With this in mind, it is worth pointing out that the slide's projections and estimates are heavily influenced by the inherently dual-purpose nature of China's state-run shipbuilding enterprise.

"PLAN surface ship producers are mixed military commercial" and "most PLAN-associated construction [is] completed in CSSC [China State Shipbuilding Corporation] facilities," the slide says. "China is the world's leading shipbuilder by a large margin" and the country "controls ~40% of [the] global commercial shipbuilding market."


This is certainly true and relevant to the emerging gap between the PLAN and U.S. Navy's battle force sizes. At the same time, it's not clear how much the U.S. shipbuilding capacity figures in the slide factored in commercial capacity. The commercial shipbuilding industry in the United States is far smaller and has less involvement in naval projects, overall, as well as not being subject to centralized state control.

Still, some examples do exist. U.S. shipbuilder General Dynamics NASSCO is a prime example, with its two main business areas being large commercial cargo and tanker ships and auxiliaries for the U.S. Navy. The design of the U.S. Navy's Lewis B. Puller class of seabase ships is derived directly from NASSCO's Alaska class oil tanker.

In addition, the slide's overall battle force figures do not directly line up with other official U.S. military data. The long-term shipbuilding plan that the U.S. Navy published in March 2019 indicated that the service would have 301 battle force vessels in the coming fiscal year. The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on Chinese military and security developments in 2020 put the respective Chinese and U.S. Navy battle force figures at 350 and 293.

The most recent report on China from the Pentagon, published last year, says that the PLAN's battle force inventory was 340 vessels in 2021. The U.S. Navy's long-term shipbuilding plan for the 2024 Fiscal Year, released earlier this year, says the service expects to have 293 vessels in its battle force in the upcoming fiscal cycle (which starts on October 1, 2023). That same document says that it could have as many as 320 or as few as 311 battle force vessels by Fiscal Year 2035 depending on what courses of action are pursued.

These discrepancies are relatively minor and do not change the fact that there is clearly a major and widening gap in battle force sizes between China and the United States. Still, they do highlight the complexities of comparative counting of naval inventories, which change regularly as older ships are decommissioned and new ones are brought into service, especially based on publicly available information. Beyond that, it is important to point out that a realistic accounting of China's naval forces is not limited to the PLAN.

In fact, last year, the Pentagon noted that the PLAN's battle force inventory had actually shrunk in 2021, but that this was due to the fact that 22 Type 056 corvettes had been transferred to the country's Coast Guard. These are 1,500-ton-displacement warships that, at least in PLAN service, had been armed with anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, among other weapons. That kind of armament is atypical of vessels in service with most other coast guards around the world, including the U.S. Coast Guard.

A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. <em>樱井千一 via Wikimedia</em>


A Type 056 corvette in PLAN service in 2013. This ship has since been transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard. 樱井千一 via Wikimedia

A true discussion of China's current and future naval capacity would have to include at least some ships from its Coast Guard and a number of other nominally civilian maritime security agencies, as well as the country's substantial maritime militia.

微信图片_20230731223749.png


An unclassified graphic ONI published in 2022 showing the full breadth of Chinese 'naval' forces beyond just the PLAN.

The U.S. military has made its own moves in this regard in recent years. The U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Coast Guard notably put out a tri-service "naval forces" white paper in 2020. Since then, there has been a clear push to increase routine Coast Guard maritime operations abroad together with the Navy and independently. This has included sending Coast Guard ships to patrol in areas of the Pacific where China has extensive and largely unrecognized territorial claims, like the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

None of this necessarily changes the overall direction of the trend line. U.S. military officials, members of Congress, and naval experts have all been drawing attention to the widening gap in total size between the U.S. Navy and the PLAN, as well as concerns about shipbuilding capacity, for years now.

"They have 13 shipyards, in some cases their shipyard has more capacity – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined," Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told members of Congress at a hearing in February. "That presents a real threat."

Overall shipyard capacity has a massive impact on sustaining ships. The ONI slide now circulating online includes a note that "50+ dry docks can physically accommodate an aircraft carrier." The PLAN is working hard to increase the size of its carrier fleets and this also reflects yards that could be used to conduct work on other larger surface ships and submarines.

Shipyard capacity for sustainment of existing fleets is also something that has been a subject of great concern in the United States for some time now. After decades of cutting back on spending, the U.S. Navy has been trying to explore ways to alleviate those issues, including by modernizing its own remaining shipyards and expanding its use of commercial yards to conduct various types of often sensitive work. Reflecting the trend of shipbuilding capacity increasingly being found outside of the United States, the latter category could eventually include more foreign-owned and operated yards, including ones in Japan, too.

Shipbuilding is also a complex and costly affair that requires large amounts of skilled labor and resources, which can take significant time to source. Delays or other hiccups in shipbuilding, as well as repair and overhaul work that requires shipyard capacity, can easily cascade. This reality has manifested itself to an especially extreme degree for the U.S. Navy when it comes to submarine maintenance.

Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, the Navy's Program Executive officer for Attack Submarines, told reporters in November 2022 on the sidelines of the Naval Submarine League’s annual conference that 18 of the service's 50 attack submarines of all classes were undergoing or awaiting maintenance at that time. This is significantly higher than the service's target of having no more than 20 percent of all attack submarines down for maintenance at a time.

The Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Boise, which was first commissioned in 1992, has become an unfortunate poster child for these issues. Boise has been sitting pierside since 2017 and when it hopefully returns to active duty next year it will have spent around 20 percent of its entire career idle awaiting maintenance.

In addition, this reality has prompted major concerns with regard to the U.S. Navy's capacity, or lack thereof, to repair battle-damaged ships and get them back into service relatively rapidly in a major future conflict. The multi-day fire that gutted the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard while it was in port undergoing maintenance in 2020 reinvigorated discussions about the service's limited capacity to process damaged ships in an actual crisis. This has only been magnified by the increasing possibility of a major conflict in the Pacific.

"The Navy has not needed to triage and repair multiple battle-damaged ships in quick succession since World War II," the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said in a report published in 2021. “After the end of the Cold War, the Navy divested many of its wartime ship repair capabilities, and its ship maintenance capabilities have evolved to focus largely on supporting peacetime maintenance needs."

"However, the rise of 21st century adversaries," like China, "capable of producing high-end threats in warfare – referred to as great power competitors – revives the need for the Navy to reexamine its battle damage repair capability to ensure it is ready for potential conflict," the 2021 GAO report added.

A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.'s 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.


A flow chart from GAO's 2021 report on US Navy capacity to triage and repair significant numbers of battle-damaged ships.

In February, Navy Secretary Del Toro highlighted how the differences between a democratic United States and a totalitarian China come into play in this part of the equation.
“[W]hen you have unemployment at less than 4%, it makes it a real challenge whether you’re trying to find workers for a restaurant or you’re trying to find workers for a shipyard,” he explained. "They’re a communist country, they don’t have rules by which they abide by."

"They use slave labor in building their ships, right,” Del Toro also asserted. "That’s not the way we should do business ever, but that’s what we’re up against so it does present a significant advantage."

As a result, the U.S. Navy has often called into question the basic viability of trying to maintain parity with China on a quantitative level. The service's senior leadership has often argued against focusing solely on total numbers and for pursuing advanced and novel capabilities, including hypersonic weapons and uncrewed surface and underwater vessels, which will allow it to keep a qualitative edge.

"They [the PLAN] got a larger fleet now so they’re deploying that fleet globally,” Navy Secretary Del Toro said at the hearing in February. "We do need a larger Navy, we do need more ships in the future, more modern ships in the future, in particular, that can meet that threat."

"For us to pivot, under the budget line that we have right now, to pivot to a more lethal force, we need to give up some stuff," Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday, the Navy's top officer, told reporters in Febraury 2022. "And you can’t just look at it through the lens of surface VLS [vertical launch system] tubes."

Gilday was responding to a question about the U.S. Navy's plans to decommission its Ticonderoga class cruisers, each of which has 122 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells that can be loaded with various missiles. The ships typically carry a large load of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and represent a significant portion of the service's current surface-to-surface strike capacity.

All of this of course comes amid concerns about China's rising military capacity and capabilities, writ large, particularly within the context of a potential future intervention against Taiwan. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) could feel that is capable of succeeding in such a major operation by 2027, if not sooner. Of course, those same officials routinely stress that this does not mean that the government in Beijing is actively planning to act on any particular timeline.

Though The War Zone has not yet been able to confirm this, the shipbuilding slide appears to be from a larger ONI briefing intended for members of Congress that calls for more actively challenging Chinese ambitions over Taiwan and elsewhere. The briefing in question at least contains the same details about China's control of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and the number of drydocks it has that can fit an aircraft carrier as the unclassified slide that has been circulating online, according to a report last week from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

"'The survival of Taiwan’s democracy is a critical geostrategic issue that carries long-term consequences for China, the U.S., and the broader international community,' the ONI said, but 'the China problem is not all about Taiwan,' noting that all of China’s neighbors, both on land and sea, are facing military, economic and diplomatic pressures from Beijing which would be extremely hard to hold at bay individually," Air & Space Forces Magazine reported after obtaining a copy of this larger briefing. It "noted ten geographic areas where China is actively challenging borders and territory, and it is increasingly characterizing itself as an 'arctic nation' with rights to exploit resources in that area."

A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north toward the Arctic Region in 2021. <em>USCG</em>'s Aleutian Islands as they headed north toward the Arctic Region in 2021. <em>USCG</em>


A trio of Chinese warships are seen from the deck of a US Coast Guard ship shadowing them near Alaska's Aleutian Islands as they headed north toward the Arctic Region in 2021. USCG

The briefing also reportedly at least contains the same details about China controlling 40 percent of worldwide commercial shipbuilding and having 50 drydocks big enough to fit an aircraft carrier as the unclassified slide that has been circulating online.

It also warns against China's use of "espionage, coercion, pressure, subversion, and disinformation" to "shape the international system" and otherwise gain global leverage, that report says.

“We are engaged in an international struggle between competing visions," the briefing, which carries the signature of ONI head Rear Adm. Mike Studemans, adds, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. "China is executing a grand strategy, and has been unified in pursuing it comprehensively and aggressively for many years."

When it comes to the Navy, in particular, ONI is clearly sounding the alarm anew that the startling disparity, which is still rapidly growing, in total fleet sizes and shipbuilding capacity between it and the PLAN is a major concern when it comes to the service's ability to help challenge the Chinese government's global ambitions.

You definitely not paying attention

US unveils island launchers for China containment​

Part of initiative placing long-range weapons in the First Island Chain to create air and maritime superiority

1690829720097.png


“US Long-Range Fires Launcher complements OpFires and Typhon in implementing its missile wall strategy versus China.”

The US Marine Corps (USMC) has just unveiled its new land-based cruise missile launcher, the latest addition to several similar systems promising dispersed, survivable firepower in its “missile wall” containment strategy against China.

This month, The Warzone reported that the USMC had unveiled the Long-Range Fires Launcher, an uncrewed 4×4 launch vehicle based on the Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary-Fires (ROGUE-Fires) vehicle for the land-based Tomahawk cruise missile that the service aims to field.

The source notes that the USMC’s first Long Range Missile (LMSL) battery had already been formally activated this year, with the service hoping to have a multi-battery LMSL battalion with an unspecified number of launchers by 2030.

The Warzone notes that the Long-Range Fires Launcher can hold just one Tomahawk missile at a time, unlike the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), which can fit two Naval Strike Missiles. The source notes both are mounted on the ROGUE-Fires uncrewed Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) operated remotely by ground personnel.

The USMC’s development of the Long-Range Fires launcher may address a mobility gap associated with the truck-towed OpFires and Typhon. Naval News notes that the latter two launchers cannot fit in a C-130 cargo plane, whereas they could if mounted on the USMC’s smaller Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR). That could make their rapid deployment possible on remote Pacific islands.

In July 2022, Asia Times reported about the USMC Operational Fires (OpFires) hypersonic weapon test that month. OpFires features a high degree of interoperability with US Army systems, with the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) noting that a USMC logistics truck with the Palletized Load System (PLS) launched the OpFires missile, making any vehicle in the US inventory with the system a potential launcher.

DARPA also said the OpFires test used US Army artillery and fire control systems for launch, enabling inter-service joint operations, reinforcing systems capability and simplifying logistics.

In terms of system components, Naval News notes that the OpFires can carry various payloads, with the system consisting of missiles, canisters, and launchers sized to fit on the US Army’s PLS and USMC’s Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) units. The source also says three OpFires missiles can fit on a US military 10×10 truck and that the US Marine Corps is experimenting with the Tactical Tomahawk fired from a trailer-mounted Mk 41 VLS.
Previously, in December 2022, Asia Times reported about the US Army’s acquisition of its first four Typhon missile launchers as part of its mid-range capability (MRC) program to fill in its requirement for long-range fires in the Pacific theater. The Typhon is designed to fire Standard SM-6 or Tomahawk missiles between 500 and 1,800 kilometers, which are between the US Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PSM) and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), which have respective ranges of 482 and 2,776 kilometers.

The latest Standard SM-6 Block IB features a redesigned body and larger rocket motor, giving it improved anti-air and anti-missile capabilities, and a possible secondary land attack function, while the latest Tomahawk Block V features new communications, anti-ship capability, and multi-effect warheads. Each Typhon unit consists of an operations center, four Mk 41-derived vertical launch system (VLS) launchers towed by M983A4 tractor trucks, and associated reloading and ground equipment.

Land-based missile launchers may have advantages over their ship-based counterparts, including increased survivability and effectiveness for less cost. They can also constantly present in contested areas, providing tactical and operational cover for US and allied forces. Also, attacking ISland-based missile launchers on its allies’ territories can significantly escalate hostilities.

Those advantages may tie into the 2021 US Marine Corps Concept for Stand-In Forces (SIF), which defines SIFs as “small but lethal, low signature, mobile, relatively simple to maintain and sustain forces designed to operate across the competition continuum within a contested area as the leading edge of a maritime defense-in-depth to disrupt the plans of a potential or actual adversary intentionally.” The document also states that SIFs conduct sea denial operations to support fleet operations near maritime chokepoints, using organic sensors and weapons to complete kill webs.

Those systems also tie in with the US New Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which USNI News notes will involve ground forces with long-range weapons in the First Island Chain to create temporary bubbles of localized air and maritime superiority, enabling maneuver by amphibious forces to create temporal and geographic uncertainty to impose costs and conduct forcible entry operations.
1690829783313.png

At the strategic level, the US Long-Range Fires, OpFires, and Typhon programs may be part of a larger “missile wall” containment strategy against China. The simultaneous deployment of US and Chinese anti-access/area denial capabilities near contested waterways and airspace can result in neither side enjoying the freedom of maneuver over those areas, maintaining a tense but stable military balance in the Pacific.

However, a 2022 RAND study notes that the strategy may fail since the US may need help finding an ideal partner for these Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles (GBIRM). It states that as long as Thailand has a military-backed government that pursues closer ties with China, Thailand will not want to host US GBIRMs.

While the Philippines’ alliance with the US has undergone a significant reset under the Marcos Jr. administration, that has not alleviated the former’s reluctance to host permanent US bases, weak territorial defense capability, and vulnerability to naval blockade. Such makes US deployments of GBIRMs unlikely in the Philippines.

The RAND study notes that South Korea is not an ideal base for US ground-based long-range missiles due to its vulnerability to Chinese economic pressure, disagreements with the US over operational control of South Korea’s military, and South Korea’s doubts over US security guarantees.

While the study notes Australia and the US’ strong alliance, the former’s distance from Taiwan and the South China Sea, coupled with its reluctance to host permanent US bases, rules it out as an ideal GBIRM basing location.

The study notes that Japan may be an ideal partner for US GBIRM deployments, citing its strong alliance with the US and willingness to bolster its defense capabilities. Although it says that Japan may be reluctant to host US GBIRMs, as they could be nuclear-armed, Japan may be willing to host conventionally-armed missiles. It also says that the US approach to Japan that would most likely succeed would be to help the latter have its arsenal of ground-based anti-ship missiles.


Yall better build 10.000 ships otherwise it ain't gonna cut it.
 
US was not fighting to colonize these countries but to dismantle regimes that they had deemed as a threat to American interests. US-led forces dismantled Osama regime in Afghanistan for 9/11, Saddam regime in Iraq to reboot Iraqi political landscape, Qaddafi regime in Libya to reboot Libyan political landscape, and ISIL regime across Iraq and Syria to prevent collapse of Iraq. This is how success is measured in "military terms." These battles have kept American forces in operational state and develop new tactics in the process.

I am not sure what constitute as success in your books. One has to look at the agenda of war that was fought and and success is measured on the basis of defeating opponents. US can tell its Public that those who are involved in 9/11 plot and conspiracy are eliminated, this was the agenda.
USA is / was never a super power , it is only projected as such under the guise of modern world . In Reality super power or any power has to conquer and sustain itself on conquered land as rulers . Which US never did in its entire history .
 
UK lost its unrivalled naval might the same way US is losing its now, losing their industrial capability and large skilled workforce first.

meanwhile the UK has the ability to surge 2 x Carrier at one time Chinese Casino Carriers are pier queens

UK is on the most top tier navies of the World with a extra ordinary high training and professional standard and a long rich history and tradition

with 4 x SSBN + 7 x SSN it has had a continuous at sea nuclear deterrence since 1969

Chinese nuclear submarine copies of those terrible Russian ones has not even conducted a deterrence patrol yet

Trident has been tested and retested and validated and optimised over 200 launches in last 30 years

how many launches has JL-2 and JL-3 done? less than 10

UK is ready
 
USA is / was never a super power , it is only projected as such under the guise of modern world . In Reality super power or any power has to conquer and sustain itself on conquered land as rulers . Which US never did in its entire history .

Colonizing a distant country is unnecessary when its leadership can be toppled or made to accept terms or to not threaten American interests.

US continues to maintain its footprint in a number of countries where it has a fought a war such as Philippines, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, and Iraq.

But US withdrew its forces from Vietnam, Panama, Libya, and Afghanistan. These countries might not be high priority in American strategic calculus.
 
USA is / was never a super power , it is only projected as such under the guise of modern world . In Reality super power or any power has to conquer and sustain itself on conquered land as rulers . Which US never did in its entire history .

It is true that Superpower historically had standing armies in the conqoured territories and when those soldiers and garrisons were withdrawn, that province or territory were considered lost and no longer part of the Empire.

In that sense America neither directly controls, nor holds standing Army (meant for quelling rebellion), nor chooses the governors directly from Whashington (Capital of Empire).

Maybe the modern world no longer nescceate standing armies and full control of territories.
 
These are subjective claims. Defeat is if you are made to surrender in a war.

Let's see.

Osama Bin Laden and his jihadi network is eliminated = check

Taliban groups have agreed to not allow Al-Qaeda types to plot attacks on American interests in Doha Accords = check

Biden administration scrapped the Intra-Afghan Dialogue and honor Doha Accords with Taliban groups.

This is not defeat but settlement in which US has eliminated a threat to its interests in the region.

Try to understand and comprehend.

Taliban groups have survived because Afghanistan is landlocked and they can find refuge in Iran and Pakistan. US was at a disadvantage in this matter. But US has concluded this war on acceptable terms for itself. This is an achievement.

Since Muslims in modern times have forgotten how to fight and win a war, they assume that others are incompetent like them as well.

Osama Bin Laden and his jihadi network is eliminated = Wrong

Taliban groups have agreed to not allow Al-Qaeda types to plot attacks on American interests in Doha Accords = Drug and gun totting warlord words have no meaning

Biden administration scrapped the Intra-Afghan Dialogue and honor Doha Accords with Taliban groups.- I don't think Afghans care after defeating two World Super Powers

This is not defeat but settlement in which US has eliminated a threat to its interests in the region.=Not according to the US army

Try to understand and comprehend.=Unfortunately it seems the incomprehensible is incomprehensible to you

Taliban groups have survived because Afghanistan is landlocked and they can find refuge in Iran and Pakistan. US was at a disadvantage in this matter. But US has concluded this war on acceptable terms for itself. This is an achievement.= Battle hardened terrorists the monsters the US created to serve them against USSR turned on their ,asters and whipped their backsides. It was a brutal war with many civilian casualties and extremely costly but the NATO could not make headway and gave up. It was the cost and the brutal insurgency that ended the war.

Since Muslims in modern times have forgotten how to fight and win a war, they assume that others are incompetent like them as well.= Tell me who knows how to fight?
 
Osama Bin Laden and his jihadi network is eliminated = Wrong

Taliban groups have agreed to not allow Al-Qaeda types to plot attacks on American interests in Doha Accords = Drug and gun totting warlord words have no meaning

Biden administration scrapped the Intra-Afghan Dialogue and honor Doha Accords with Taliban groups.- I don't think Afghans care after defeating two World Super Powers

This is not defeat but settlement in which US has eliminated a threat to its interests in the region.=Not according to the US army

Try to understand and comprehend.=Unfortunately it seems the incomprehensible is incomprehensible to you

Taliban groups have survived because Afghanistan is landlocked and they can find refuge in Iran and Pakistan. US was at a disadvantage in this matter. But US has concluded this war on acceptable terms for itself. This is an achievement.= Battle hardened terrorists the monsters the US created to serve them against USSR turned on their ,asters and whipped their backsides. It was a brutal war with many civilian casualties and extremely costly but the NATO could not make headway and gave up. It was the cost and the brutal insurgency that ended the war.

Since Muslims in modern times have forgotten how to fight and win a war, they assume that others are incompetent like them as well.= Tell me who knows how to fight?

Osama Bin Laden and his followers are alive? Did you see these people having a party in Afghanistan in 2022?

Latest kill:


TTA has given its word to the Americans "in writing."

TTA were concerned, the war had taken a toll on these people as well.

Difference of opinion.

US and TTA commenced talks in 2013 and Obama administration significantly reduced NATO footprint in Afghanistan in 2014. US had created ANSF to protect Afghan government and directed it to fight TTA if necessary. ANSF fought TTA in Afghanistan while US focused on dismantling ISIL in the Middle East. This situation continued until US and TTA found a mutually acceptable solution in Doha Accords in 2020. These are well-documented sequence of events.

Under the 2020 Doha Agreement, the US withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan was conditional on Taliban security assurances that Afghan territory would not be used as a launch pad by al-Qaeda or Islamic State for attacks against the United States.

US-led forces have defeated much larger and stronger adversaries than TTA in different regions.

It is not a question of whether US can defeat TTA in war, it certainly can.

But:

US was operating in Afghanistan via Pakistan.
Pakistan was supporting TTA.
US realized that Pakistan does not wants to dismantle Taliban groups.
US decided to negotiate with TTA and both found a mutually acceptable solution.
End of.

If you want to believe that TTA has won, fine, but this is negotiated victory or settlement.

Try to fight US in a situation where it is operating freely and you will find out who knows how to fight.
 

Back
Top Bottom