China to past UK, France by 2020

[applesauce]

In 2025 B R I C K S (may be R I C S brazil far so cant be included cant say about s.korea too and i dont know about safrica) country may even make a army like NATO

China and india are talking fast now a days

In fantasy future every thing is possible

i assume K is for korea?

2025 is only 11 years away. I see no chance of it happening. even discounting china-india relations, south korea is firmly in the Us camp so long as NK exists and if NK falls tomorrow SK will be busy rebuilding for the next 30 years.

me thinks..if a war is fought in atlantic ocean u.k and france will win.if its fought is scs china wins..

basically this. if PLAN faced GB and France in a magically battlefield where logistics dont matter, then PLAN wins hands down every-time. but we live in the real world and PLAN power projection is still extremely limited. outside of the near seas, china simply dont have much of a naval presence. of course this is changing extremely rapidly

 

[Mighty Caty]

You are talking foreign bases, not transport capabilities. Foreign bases are an X factor, not purely military. It's political. Political situation change, China is pumping hundreds of billions into Africa each year, would you be surprised if China has a few of those in 2025? It's just China is stuck in Asia right now by America.

We do't know the political situation in 2025, IF China manages to push America more or less out of east Asia, the world would not be the same, of course it's if. But this thread is more pure military since I can't predict the future.

There's the real possibility that china may reform the Navy again in the 2020s after this one this year, to fit a more far reaching mission.

Also Y-20 can reach almost every inch of Africa.

Now I did know about NATO had its own deal, but I didn't know how exactly it worked. But France is not under that deal isn't it. Either way, at most this places us in the same transport scope, BUT China has complete command of Chinese military and is always on the ready.

The 2013 earthquake proved the fast reaction of the army, an army mobilized after less than half an hour, and full reports were on the desk of the strategy meeting in 2 hours.

China will almost certainly outpace the EU response. NATO maybe united, but British and French troops are not under their command, not in that kind of number anyways.


let's look at this scenario, China EU finds out same time about this crisis. EU needs to talk about it themselves then to between themselves.

China needs to talk about it ourselves, let's assume same amount of time for domestic talks, though it's more likely we be faster, not authoritarian for nothing.

China sends forces while EU still talking, EU may have members that send as we are just as a counter, but no way could it be a united effort and thus less powerful.

Now if past experience is used a week is used for talks and mobilization, we all know that's generous, by then half a division of well armed troops will already be there, and most likely more. Battles would have been fought with whatever's there that's opposing China, before the EU even start the sending of troops. This is looking at Mali incident, and from the various sources from Chinese experts on Chinese mobilization and transport speed based on the exercise each year.

It's quite possible that EU would mobilize before any final decision, but won't sent in huge numbers before final resolution.

So in the end we would have the advantage, for a 2 million army, our lift capabilities would far out number any Europeans have to offer.

This is all of course talking a combined European war, while the title suggest individually, or individually with minimal allies. So 2020 would be more than enough to reach this level, except the gap would widen quite considerably after 2020.

[In green]No, i am not talking about Foreign Base (Like the one US has in Japan) But rather the base that lies outside Continental Europe but is of European Sovereignty (Such as Diego Garcia for UK).

The first type of base is, the host country is of a different control of the country that own the establishment. So, in case of a war, if the host country was neutral in a case of war, the base would be denial access by the belligerent country that's going to war.

Say for example, if US is fighting North Korea in North Korea, and if Japan is neutral over the conflict, Japan is by law to not allow US access their base as the base is on Japanese home soil. So either Japan have to be dragged by America to the same war, that would mean US would need to divert asset to protect the base in Japan or even to Japan itself and thinning out the herd, or US cannot use their asset on that Japanese Base, worst, by law, any American combat asset in Japan would have to be sieze and intern by the Japanese and anything that's left there cannot be use at the war between US and North Korea.

Not to mention political interest can change, you might think Philippine is an all weather friend of the US yet, they still close Subic Bay and Clark in 1991.

However, an UK Base on overseas UK territories does not have that problem, as they were owned by belligerent, they are free to use by any co-belligerent nations who fought in the same sides.

In Chinese Case, unless the African nation gone to war with China against NATO, which will mean China need to spare troop to portect their whole nation as i don't think any Aftrican nation can go head to head with EU yet, otherwise, if the african nation are neutral in the war between NATO and China, they cannot be use to supply Chinese force and push the supply line back to at least Pakistan (If they are with China, otherwise the same deal) or eventually back to Chinese soil. That mean every bullet, bomb, food, clothing and every drop of fuel must be brought directly from China. Which is considerably longer than the supply route from Ascension to Horn of Africa or Reunion to horn of Africa.

[In Red]Hence, either China have a considerably large logistic supply troop to compensate the situation (2 or 3 times as large as the EU) or . However, currently EU have about 400 transport planes of all sort (UK-70, French-110, Germany-80 alone), the transport force of the EU is not to be underestimate, not to mention if UK is at war, you would be looking at US, which have whopping 800 + transport planes of all sort (including 223 C-17) I would say even before US chip in on tactical and stratgetic air transport role, China would have a hard time fighting the EU on an oversea battlefield.

[In Blue]Depend on what kind of crisis you are talking about, if the situation is that China attack anyone of the EU antion, then the rest will jump in automatically (The cluase of calling all EU help if one member is at danger of invasion), if the nation is a NATO member, then NATO would take over.

Contrast to what you say and what people generally think, EU is an automonus regime and they act as a unified force, and EU have their own EU Battlegroup that match different country with their different ability together so that they can perform better in a particular battlefield, EU Battlegroup consist of 19 different battlegroup of 40,000 man led by different nations, and they are under the overall EU Military Staff command structure command. When a troop is alloted to a EU Battlegroup, they are under the unified command of EU Central Command in Brussel.

What the EU battlegroup do is to have the battle group whom specialised in particular warfare to engage in a rapid deployment warfare and then allow the member nation to mobilise, currently EU army is about 1.7 millions strong with a full mobilisation time of about 14 days. So basically if China decided to invade for example Reunion, which is a french territories, The EU battlegroup would be deployed and ready to go in 48 hours. Then they will fight there until the main EU Force get there

Again, that is before any EU member invoke a NATO defence treaty, which will directly drag Canada, US and Australia into war. but then that would need a serious deliberation

I think you have seriously underestimate the strength of EU military, EU is not as weak as you said, no doubt China can take one EU member one by one, but it is anopther ballgame when you try to take on EU as a whole.

 

[bolo]

No offense, but any suggestion that China somehow needs to conduct an amphibious assault on Japan and the Philippines is absurd. Both countries are island nations with no natural resources. Only an idiot would want to invade them. The US decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki precisely so they wouldn't have to invade an island full of fanatical Japanese. In fact, it was always the other way around throughout history. Japan was the one that wanted to invade the Asian mainland because they needed the resources. Even today Japan needs to import 60 percent of their food or they would starve.

Of course, nowadays Japan has no ability whatsoever to invade China, so there's no need to worry about that. China, on the other hand, is holding all the cards. We got nukes. We got ballistic and cruise missiles capable of reaching every square meter of Japan. We got the H-6K. We will soon have the J-20. We will soon have stealth UCAVs. We will soon have hypersonic glide vehicles. China can disable every single Japanese military base with missile strikes alone. After that, we will start hitting critical infrastructure like power stations, oil depots, pipelines, bridges, factories, civilian ports and airports. Are you saying Japan still won't surrender after that?

The Philippines does not even need to be mentioned because they have no military. China can send semi-submersible drilling rigs into the South China Sea right now and start drilling. What is the Philippines going to do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Lastly, I urge you to take a look at Asia again.

This is the world's largest contiguous landmass with vast amounts of natural resources. If China plays its cards right, we can control all or most of it within this century. But you don't need ships to do it. You need lots of vehicles in the same way Genghis Khan needed lots of horses to hold the Mongol Empire together.

You need the J-20 for undisputed air superiority throughout Asia.

You need the Y-20.

You need the Blue Whale.

Once you control the Asian mainland, you will naturally control the coastal waters surrounding the continent for your merchant vessels. You don't need aircraft carriers when you have J-20s on land.

Now explain why we need to invade some islands when we can have all of Asia?

forgive Genesis as he is in one of his mood swing again

 

[Genesis]

No offense, but any suggestion that China somehow needs to conduct an amphibious assault on Japan and the Philippines is absurd. Both countries are island nations with no natural resources. Only an idiot would want to invade them. The US decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki precisely so they wouldn't have to invade an island full of fanatical Japanese. In fact, it was always the other way around throughout history. Japan was the one that wanted to invade the Asian mainland because they needed the resources. Even today Japan needs to import 60 percent of their food or they would starve.

Of course, nowadays Japan has no ability whatsoever to invade China, so there's no need to worry about that. China, on the other hand, is holding all the cards. We got nukes. We got ballistic and cruise missiles capable of reaching every square meter of Japan. We got the H-6K. We will soon have the J-20. We will soon have stealth UCAVs. We will soon have hypersonic glide vehicles. China can disable every single Japanese military base with missile strikes alone. After that, we will start hitting critical infrastructure like power stations, oil depots, pipelines, bridges, factories, civilian ports and airports. Are you saying Japan still won't surrender after that?

The Philippines does not even need to be mentioned because they have no military. China can send semi-submersible drilling rigs into the South China Sea right now and start drilling. What is the Philippines going to do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Lastly, I urge you to take a look at Asia again.

This is the world's largest contiguous landmass with vast amounts of natural resources. If China plays its cards right, we can control all or most of it within this century. But you don't need ships to do it. You need lots of vehicles in the same way Genghis Khan needed lots of horses to hold the Mongol Empire together.

You need the J-20 for undisputed air superiority throughout Asia.

You need the Y-20.

You need the Blue Whale.

Once you control the Asian mainland, you will naturally control the coastal waters surrounding the continent for your merchant vessels. You don't need aircraft carriers when you have J-20s on land.

Now explain why we need to invade some islands when we can have all of Asia?

I didn't say need I said has to use. Now maybe I should have said if, but the implied meaning is IF it ever came to that we need amphibious assault.

I would say something would have to go terribly wrong for that to happen. Especially the Philippines, they are not backing down per say, but their stance has weakened. I have theories on why, but for the purpose of this discussion let's just say Aquino III has bigger things to worry about, the distraction is not working to his intended effect and he must turn around and deal with them.

Japan would also be unlikely, they are a huge trade nation, and no wars have taken place on a developed nation since WW2, and any would be very destructive, and completely destroy a nation's image. Let's just say we are not born equal, a dead Syrian isn't quite the same as a dead Japanese.

Having said that why did I say what I did, America has DDG-1000, Ford carrier, and a host of other high tech ships that so far outstrips what's available it's stupid, but they have it. It's to my understanding one launch of anti missile missile is 20 million dollars. The reason is not to use it. The reason is to intimidate, is to make sure you know exactly what could happen if it came to this.

Japan and Philippines, Vietnam still thinks they can defeat China, Japanese are constantly publishing articles on how China would lose badly and would be made a joke if it came to air combat, and naval battle. China cannot reach Japan, but Japan will land in Shanghai.

Vietnam claim China is not as well equipped as they think, corrupt, low morale and other things, and a war would humiliate China.

India is taking on China and Pakistan at the same time, Philippines, well, they didn't quite say those things, but they more or less implied that Philippines would win the war against China by their "admiral."


If this dispute us with America, which nation would even think of these things.

It's not because China hasn't been to war, it's because they don't think we are strong, they think our toys suck, our capabilities suck. Who can blame them, if I was Japanese I would also belittle what I see currently on offer, relative to their stuff. Now many experts have broken down these articles and explained why it is not true, but I'll say this, it's not a overwhelming win, at most it's we are a little better, not the American strength where just thinking you might stand a chance is stupid.



To your last point, I'm not worried for West of China, they are either great friends like Pakistan, friends like Russia, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, most of ASEAN(Thai, Myanmar, Malay, Indo, etc are good friends as proven by many meetings every eyar) some central asian nations, and good relations like other central asian nations. India China is also doing very good. We don't need to worry about that part regardless of military or no.


So to sum up, I didn't say we are going to need to, I said we had to if it came to it. A overwhelming conventional force is a better deterrent than nuclear, because on the back of everyone's mind nobody thinks anyone will use it. For China to have the ability to protect our nation, to protect our interests, to expand our interests, all this is very needed.

If China wants to be developed, we need partners like the US has that would buy our goods and services, because of our prestige and because they must if they want to work with us. F-35 can still be sold is for exactly that reason, while JF-17 is a very competitive fighter for its price is hard to sell, because no one needs to buy it, they would consider it if it really tickled their fancy.

Sorry too long

 

[j20blackdragon]

Having said that why did I say what I did, America has DDG-1000, Ford carrier, and a host of other high tech ships that so far outstrips what's available it's stupid, but they have it. It's to my understanding one launch of anti missile missile is 20 million dollars. The reason is not to use it. The reason is to intimidate, is to make sure you know exactly what could happen if it came to this.

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.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Let me reiterate again. I am not against a buildup for the PLAN. I would LOVE to see more Chinese carrier battle groups if we can afford it.

However, simply building more ships is not a magical panacea for our problems.

1. We need to do something about the Strait of Malacca.

2. We need to gain a coastline on the Indian Ocean.

3. We need to break through both island chains.

China is literally stuck in a cage right now with regard to the ocean. Simply building more ships will not change these geographical facts.

 

[bolo]

Let me reiterate again. I am not against a buildup for the PLAN. I would LOVE to see more Chinese carrier battle groups if we can afford it.

However, simply building more ships is not a magical panacea for our problems.

1. We need to do something about the Strait of Malacca.

2. We need to gain a coastline on the Indian Ocean.

3. We need to break through both island chains.

China is literally stuck in a cage right now with regard to the ocean. Simply building more ships will not change these geographical facts.

So those central Asian countries will allow China to send troops on their land and get to the Strait of Malacca?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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.

The global strike HGV has changed the rule of the game, it is made to conventionally target against the USN surface vessels and the US mainland.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The PLAN has been protected by the second artillery corps within the western Pacific Ocean.

So the US has no chance to sink the PLAN without getting blown by the second artillery corps within the western Pacific Ocean.

 

[j20blackdragon]

So those central Asian countries will allow China to send troops on their land and get to the Strait of Malacca?

Central Asia is for petroleum and natural gas.

Southeast Asia is for the Strait of Malacca.

The PLA can take both.

Nobody allows people to do anything in this world. You have to take it.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The global strike HGV has changed the rule of the game, it is made to conventionally target against the USN surface vessels and the US mainland.

HGV attack against the US mainland will require a few things:

1. Global Beidou-2 coverage -- not available yet.

2. ICBM launch against the US mainland -- not exactly a good idea.

3. Reconnaissance satellites or some other offboard sensor to provide targeting information for the HGV. The US has already shown LEO ASAT capability with the SM-3.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

HGV attack against the US mainland will require a few things:

1. Global Beidou-2 coverage -- not available yet.

2. ICBM launch against the US mainland -- not exactly a good idea.

3. Reconnaissance satellites or some other offboard sensor to provide targeting information for the HGV. The US has already shown LEO ASAT capability with the SM-3.

- China will use the DF-11/DF-15/DF-21 to boost the HGV to reach the intercontinental range.

- But i do agree with you that we should wait until 2020 when Beidou is fully ready globally.

- The SM-3 is not that great, while the HGV has an unpredictable trajectory.

 

[Genesis]

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.

You presented a series of very serious problems, in the east we are being blocked by Japan, Taiwan and US, on the West, Malaysia, Singapore, hold the key to easy access into the Indian ocean, but you didn't really present a solution.

Central asia, for better or worse is Russian dominated, at least that's their intent, grabing them would alienate Russia for frankly very, very little gain. The road is not a easy one, the distance is crazy long and it's not a easy task to begin with.

So why do I emphasis Navy? We must break the island chains, getting Taiwan back would completely shatter the first island China and make Japan completely vulnerable, it would also give us a safe passage into the pacific for our fleets and most importantly nuclear submarines to achieve parity with US on MAD.

Pushing the US out of the island chain isn't impossible, 1) Taiwan becomes part of China, it's increasing likely that will happen, Chinese brands are taking hold and Chinese power very apparent, the charm and awe offensive has started with the return of white wolf.

2) China sanctioning North Korea means China sees the north as irrelevant, and in order to appease South and keep them perpetually neutral, we may take the North with gun in the one hand and food/money in the next. A neutral Korea, means an ed to American interests on the main land, and American fast deployment.

3) With these two moves China would have completely broken the island China, by this point, I'm unclear on the action of Japan, several things can happen, one Japan will push for normal status and thus push Americans out, a break in relations with America due to different opinion on future of Asia, or be stubborn and continue the status quo.

But I will say this, unless we have a navy that says we are not to be defeated, none of this is even possible, and even if we do do these things, the effect is negligible, for currently our fleet going into the pacific is a suicide mission.

That's all I will say for now.

BTW, did you know all Chinese wealth is on the east coast, if we don't have a strong navy, 30 years of blood and sweat gone in a matter of hours.

 

[Aegis DDG]

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.

 

[j20blackdragon]

You presented a series of very serious problems, in the east we are being blocked by Japan, Taiwan and US, on the West, Malaysia, Singapore, hold the key to easy access into the Indian ocean, but you didn't really present a solution.

Central asia, for better or worse is Russian dominated, at least that's their intent, grabing them would alienate Russia for frankly very, very little gain. The road is not a easy one, the distance is crazy long and it's not a easy task to begin with.

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.