China to past UK, France by 2020

[bolo]

I can give some solutions, but remember it's just my personal opinion. I could be right or wrong.

China will clear the first island chain with missile and air strikes. Ships are not needed at all because the distances are not that great. The J-16, J-20, H-6K, H-20, UCAVs, DF-21D, and CJ-10 can destroy all military bases, aircraft, and ships within the first island chain. Think of it as a 'Pearl Harbor' style attack. It's going to be a preemptive strike at a time of our choosing. They won't know what hit them. Japan will be bombed back into the Stone Age.

Next, the PLA will launch a full-scale ground invasion of Southeast Asia.

We will annex Burma, Thailand, and Peninsular Malaysia -- instantly giving us a massive coastline on the Indian Ocean and full control of the Strait of Malacca itself.

Once we have unimpeded access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans and control of the Strait of Malacca, a full-scale naval buildup will make perfect sense. China already has the world's largest shipbuilding industry.

Central Asia has plenty of oil and natural gas. I personally think it will be easy pickings for the PLA as long as Russia remains neutral. Central Asia itself is a separate issue and irrelevant with regard to the navy. I'm just saying the PLA can easily take it, that's all.

Burma would be easy to take. But at the meantime, China should continue modernizing her navy. It will put them in a better shape. What's stopping China from doing so?

 

[Mighty Caty]

China can take on UK/France individually, but as other members said, an NATO coalition can threaten China. China will need at-least 700 Y-20s for strategic airlift and and more importantly, an large merchant navy which can rival the United State's Maritime sea-lift reserves.

By building 700 Y-20 and expanding the Sealift force to a similar level with the US, Chinese would have to consider 2 seperate and quite troubling problem.

1.) Oil/Petrolium - Running 700 Large Transport is not cheap (Even US would only have 223 C-17) even if China drop all other transport planes, running 700 Large Transport like Y-20 would put Chinese Oil dependency to the limit, and currently and the problem is, Currently and the very foreseeable future, US is owning the oil in the Middle East and the North America themselves have more oil reserve than the Chinese, the only possible way for China to challenge the America (700 Y-20 is a dream figure really, 200-300 is way more sensible) is either for China to invade Russia and capture their vast oil field, or for China to involve in the Middle East, which either way would not be good for China.

2.) Space - The reason why US can have its own sealift fleet is because they have Naval bases all over the world, and US is a country that facing 2 oceans. On the other hand, China is blocked with facing only 1 coast, and that's not directly to the ocean. With all the Naval ship jamming up the Chinese Coast, there are no much space to put the logistic force.

Unlike US, China would need to choose either to develope their logistic force for blue water operation, or they need to focus on their own naval power for actual power projection. But Chinese cannot do both.

There are still wiggle room for the Chinese in the first island chain, but when it got out of there, that's pretty much all owned by the US (In the south there are singapore and australia, in the east there are US pacific island and Hawai'i, North they have Aleutian and Alaska)

It would be impossible for Chinese to match one on one, on-par with the American, American is a global force, while Chinese is a regional force, even if China have trade surplus and GDP more than the US, the US would continue the dominance until the American cannot sustain their opeartion. But personally and honestly i would hate to see American cannot sustain their operation because that would mean the time have come on everyone for themselve and the world would turning to chaos.

I remember one Chinese member say here, the only good thing american do is to control the Malacca strait and the Middle East, if the American stop intervening those two places, the pool of trouble will spilt and unless anyone step up, it will affect the world, i am sure as hell do not want to send Swedish troop over there there and try to maintain law and order in the middle east, i am pretty sure China or any other country do not want to do the same too.

 

[Akasa]

I think all this talk on whether China can take Europe or not is simply ridiculous. Perhaps their military do have the theoretical capability fighting capability if they were deployed in Europe, but that's not the point. It is clear that current Chinese military equipment are geared towards maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, as emphasized by their aircraft (note how China is not building lots of tanker aircraft) and missile forces (lots of short range and medium range missiles instead of long range). China's biggest problem would be the presence of a powerful US military detachment as well as USA's support of the JMSDF. If those issues can be dealt with confidently and swiftly, China would not need to expand her military into intercontinental levels unlike that of the United States. Spending is a sensitive issue for any country and the PLAN sure do not like going over budget.

 

[senheiser]

The US has the luxury of building these expensive white elephant ships like the Zumwalt-class and Ford-class because of their unique geographical position. The US is surrounded by two large oceans and friendly nations like Canada and Mexico. Moreover, there is currently no nation on the planet capable of launching a serious conventional strike on the west or east coast of the US. So this creates a unique logistics situation for the US. The only way for the US to reach Europe, Asia, or Africa is to build these large ships. The US Army can't possibly drive across the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean can they? In other words, the US has no choice but to build these ships if they want to project power outside of North America.

China is not in the same geographical situation. We have a coastline surrounded by two island chains. We have an unfriendly Japan right off our coast. We have the US military all over the Western Pacific. We are stuck behind a chokepoint called the Strait of Malacca.

Here's a picture of the Liaoning docked at its home port.

Now let me set up a worst case scenario for China.

Let's say the US launches a preemptive strike and sinks the Liaoning with Tomahawks. They can use the Harpoon. They can use the B-2 and launch a dozen JASSM. They can torpedo the ship with a Virginia class submarine. It wouldn't make a difference if China had several more carriers because they can do the same thing to each of them. You can try your best to keep the ships moving, but the US has plenty of satellites, aircraft, and ships to keep track of your surface ships. The US can sink the vast majority of the PLAN's surface ships if it really wanted to.

It's not over. The worst case scenario continues. Next, the US will conduct a global naval blockade against China. They will shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They will shut down Bab-el-Mandeb. That means no more Middle Eastern oil for China. They will shut down the Strait of Malacca. They will shut down the Panama Canal.

How would you like China to counter this?

Lastly, I'm not saying China should ignore the navy. I'm just saying having a couple of extra ships (especially large expensive surface ships) won't make a difference in the big picture. If the US decides to implement their Air-Sea Battle concept, they will succeed. Which is why I keep saying the only counter to it is to use the PLA and PLAAF and move through Central Asia. We need to go where they can't go -- on land. The US has no ability to counter several million mechanized and motorized infantry moving through Central Asia.

i agree china should invest into roads in iran, central asia and russia instead building carriers its much cheaper and is the future

Americas biggest Advantage is also its biggest weakness

 

[Genesis]

i agree china should invest into roads in iran, central asia and russia instead building carriers its much cheaper and is the future

Americas biggest Advantage is also its biggest weakness

First I'll reply to you, the Ford and Zumwalt class isn't for actual combat, just like Chinese high speed rails. It's useful, it's good to have, but it;s not a must, it's for show.

It's to tell you fear us, don't you even think about challenging us. against a equal opponent, carriers are useless, they aren't actual air fields and if you use them then you are far from home and well, they are not carriers. all 11 carriers at China's door step is bigger than every nation's fighter numbers, but not China's.

They are for intimidation, not warfare, nukes aren't the only deterrent in the world.

By building 700 Y-20 and expanding the Sealift force to a similar level with the US, Chinese would have to consider 2 seperate and quite troubling problem.

1.) Oil/Petrolium - Running 700 Large Transport is not cheap (Even US would only have 223 C-17) even if China drop all other transport planes, running 700 Large Transport like Y-20 would put Chinese Oil dependency to the limit, and currently and the problem is, Currently and the very foreseeable future, US is owning the oil in the Middle East and the North America themselves have more oil reserve than the Chinese, the only possible way for China to challenge the America (700 Y-20 is a dream figure really, 200-300 is way more sensible) is either for China to invade Russia and capture their vast oil field, or for China to involve in the Middle East, which either way would not be good for China.

2.) Space - The reason why US can have its own sealift fleet is because they have Naval bases all over the world, and US is a country that facing 2 oceans. On the other hand, China is blocked with facing only 1 coast, and that's not directly to the ocean. With all the Naval ship jamming up the Chinese Coast, there are no much space to put the logistic force.

Unlike US, China would need to choose either to develope their logistic force for blue water operation, or they need to focus on their own naval power for actual power projection. But Chinese cannot do both.

There are still wiggle room for the Chinese in the first island chain, but when it got out of there, that's pretty much all owned by the US (In the south there are singapore and australia, in the east there are US pacific island and Hawai'i, North they have Aleutian and Alaska)

It would be impossible for Chinese to match one on one, on-par with the American, American is a global force, while Chinese is a regional force, even if China have trade surplus and GDP more than the US, the US would continue the dominance until the American cannot sustain their opeartion. But personally and honestly i would hate to see American cannot sustain their operation because that would mean the time have come on everyone for themselve and the world would turning to chaos.

I remember one Chinese member say here, the only good thing american do is to control the Malacca strait and the Middle East, if the American stop intervening those two places, the pool of trouble will spilt and unless anyone step up, it will affect the world, i am sure as hell do not want to send Swedish troop over there there and try to maintain law and order in the middle east, i am pretty sure China or any other country do not want to do the same too.

Much of what you say isn't military it's politics.

I'll say again, if I tell you to give me your window table, and move to the one to the bathroom door so I can sit there and enjoy the coffee, you won't move, but if I had massive political power you will, if I can afford to pay you, you will, if I'm mike Tyson, you bet your *** you will.

Blue water navy, power projection, economy and everything goes hand in hand, navy gives the power, power projection will happen with the navy, both protects economy and economy powers both. Of course over simplified, but it's just to show there's a link to everything. If you got no navy, and no money who will give you a base? Why would you need one? If you got a base and needs force projection, 11 carriers is needed, but if you got a small economy, why would you need one. Necessity created the USN.

 

[Genesis]

I can give some solutions, but remember it's just my personal opinion. I could be right or wrong.

China will clear the first island chain with missile and air strikes. Ships are not needed at all because the distances are not that great. The J-16, J-20, H-6K, H-20, UCAVs, DF-21D, and CJ-10 can destroy all military bases, aircraft, and ships within the first island chain. Think of it as a 'Pearl Harbor' style attack. It's going to be a preemptive strike at a time of our choosing. They won't know what hit them. Japan will be bombed back into the Stone Age.

Next, the PLA will launch a full-scale ground invasion of Southeast Asia.

We will annex Burma, Thailand, and Peninsular Malaysia -- instantly giving us a massive coastline on the Indian Ocean and full control of the Strait of Malacca itself.

Once we have unimpeded access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans and control of the Strait of Malacca, a full-scale naval buildup will make perfect sense. China already has the world's largest shipbuilding industry.

Central Asia has plenty of oil and natural gas. I personally think it will be easy pickings for the PLA as long as Russia remains neutral. Central Asia itself is a separate issue and irrelevant with regard to the navy. I'm just saying the PLA can easily take it, that's all.

No one has ever invaded a democratic country and remained there, since WW2.

If China does even 1% of what you said it would destroy herself. We want to be first amongst equals, not crazy commi bandits. We'll have access to those oceans with a strong navy, the US can go anywhere because of it's economy and navy. It doesn't need to conquer and neither do we.

Economy isn't so simple, sometimes being the middle man is more lucrative than actually owning the thing. You don't have to make south China sea gas go to China, use political influence and money to make it go to a Russia and central Asian customer than have their gas go to only China.

In this way it actually gives us a better hand, no need to worry about production, cheap and reliable, as well as it's a political favor all in one go. Three birds one stone, and all happened because we don't own the gas in South China sea.


Lastly, you launch on the US, 8 of the 20 something Ohio class will wipe China clean, and then China will rock the US, and then world end. We want to be the king of the castle, not radioactive pretender in waste land.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Much of what you say isn't military it's politics.

I'll say again, if I tell you to give me your window table, and move to the one to the bathroom door so I can sit there and enjoy the coffee, you won't move, but if I had massive political power you will, if I can afford to pay you, you will, if I'm mike Tyson, you bet your *** you will.

Blue water navy, power projection, economy and everything goes hand in hand, navy gives the power, power projection will happen with the navy, both protects economy and economy powers both. Of course over simplified, but it's just to show there's a link to everything. If you got no navy, and no money who will give you a base? Why would you need one? If you got a base and needs force projection, 11 carriers is needed, but if you got a small economy, why would you need one. Necessity created the USN.

It is Military.

Sealift and Logistic from fix bases is a simple Strategic issue, how long you can rage a war depend on how long of a supply line you can keep.

Your claim of "Massive Political Power" does not flow on water as if what you said have to be true, then US in the current form should and would have bases all over the world. I don't believe there are any nation currently that can challenge US, even if you are talking about some part of the world combine. but is it the case now?

Economy is only one part of the equation for building a strong Nation. However, doing business does not mean you would assert political will on other country, throughtout history, there are numerous example that i can quote where being Economic power (Even political ally) cannot force a sovereign nation to do what they don't see fit to do. Example in mind, US cannot force Ireland, Sweden into WW2, US cannot even force Canada and the UK to Vietnam war, while UK cannot twist American arms on Falkland conflict, you can also see the example of US was not forced into Sinai by both French and the UK.

If you think China can force anyone to do things just to root for her simply by controlling their economy, then you should start think again. As far as i see, China is top trading partner on Japan, South Korea, UK and Australia, can you force the four into Chinese Camp as of now?? I do not know why people here think Economy can play a serious role on asserting/projecting power, while economic power come and gone, you see US took over EU after WW2 and Japan took over US during 80/90s and now you see Chinese taken over from Japan in 2010s, what make you think in 20 years or so, there aren't anyone to take over Chinese as a economic power??

As i said many time, the fix bases is not about Economical power, it's not about Political power, the land base is simply standing on military logistic, which dictate how long and how big of a war you can start. That's a general rules of war.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The US has carefully prepositioned resources at bases around the world and they play a tremendous key role in how the military works.

With these bases for instance the US can literally fly its Air Force planes (including fighters) non-stop anywhere around the globe through the use of prepositioned in-air refueling tankers. The US flies B2 bombers from the US to Afghanistan and then back to the US...non-stop...not just to drop ordinance...but to test and make sure their logistics are in sync.

How do you get thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan? They didn't go by ship and then take a bus through Pakistan. I also didn't hear about any tanks traveling through Pakistan to get to Afghanistan. Ever hear about a truck carrying a tank being torched?

Not only does the US have a large number of military transport aircraft the US also has a tremendous number of civilian airliners at their disposal. Just the top 5 US airlines have close to 5000 planes in total and if you add in cargo plane companies like FedEx and UPS the number is even crazier. Obviously they don't do in air refueling but they can bunny hop from base to base or use civilian airports in friendly countries.

The US can move men and material across the planet by air with relative ease.

If you want to talk about concentrating energies on naval and land transport...well go right ahead.

 

[bolo]

I think all this talk on whether China can take Europe or not is simply ridiculous. Perhaps their military do have the theoretical capability fighting capability if they were deployed in Europe, but that's not the point. It is clear that current Chinese military equipment are geared towards maintaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific, as emphasized by their aircraft (note how China is not building lots of tanker aircraft) and missile forces (lots of short range and medium range missiles instead of long range). China's biggest problem would be the presence of a powerful US military detachment as well as USA's support of the JMSDF. If those issues can be dealt with confidently and swiftly, China would not need to expand her military into intercontinental levels unlike that of the United States. Spending is a sensitive issue for any country and the PLAN sure do not like going over budget.

Do you want to be the reserve currency of the world? Do you want hostile Americans interfering in your country's affairs? Do you want hegemony in the Pacific rim? If you answered yes , no and yes than you need to do whatever it takes to build a dominant strong military.

 

[Akasa]

Do you want to be the reserve currency of the world? Do you want hostile Americans interfering in your country's affairs? Do you want hegemony in the Pacific rim? If you answered yes , no and yes than you need to do whatever it takes to build a dominant strong military.

Buddy, money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that the Chinese are focusing on regional dominance serves to save its budget while focusing on ensuring that aggressors would stand no chance in the region.

 

[bolo]

Buddy, money doesn't grow on trees. The fact that the Chinese are focusing on regional dominance serves to save its budget while focusing on ensuring that aggressors would stand no chance in the region.

Let me ask you this. Why is USD the world reserve currency?

 

[Akasa]

No one has ever invaded a democratic country and remained there, since WW2.

If China does even 1% of what you said it would destroy herself. We want to be first amongst equals, not crazy commi bandits. We'll have access to those oceans with a strong navy, the US can go anywhere because of it's economy and navy. It doesn't need to conquer and neither do we.

Economy isn't so simple, sometimes being the middle man is more lucrative than actually owning the thing. You don't have to make south China sea gas go to China, use political influence and money to make it go to a Russia and central Asian customer than have their gas go to only China.

In this way it actually gives us a better hand, no need to worry about production, cheap and reliable, as well as it's a political favor all in one go. Three birds one stone, and all happened because we don't own the gas in South China sea.


Lastly, you launch on the US, 8 of the 20 something Ohio class will wipe China clean, and then China will rock the US, and then world end. We want to be the king of the castle, not radioactive pretender in waste land.

Democracy has no effect on a country's military capabilities.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Let me ask you this. Why is USD the world reserve currency?

It's the most liquid.

 

[Akasa]

Let me ask you this. Why is USD the world reserve currency?

How is that relevant?

 

[bolo]

How is that relevant?

Because any country who disagrees will get bombed to the stone age or get left out of development by other countries due to US pressure. Money and value is just a man made thing. Example, let's say you have the powers of Superman with no kryptonite weakness. If you want your own sinosoldier dollar to be the world currency, If you want copper as trade currency, it shall be. Why? Because you are the most powerful and no one can defeat you. You can kill anyone who disagrees with you. Now you know why USD is the world reserve currency