What's new

China's military capabilities are gaining on the U.S. The Pentagon needs to take bold steps.

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China
China's military capabilities are gaining on the U.S. The Pentagon needs to take bold steps.
American war games indicate that the current U.S. force may be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

200720-think-china-military-parade-se-234p_f42f4e49ea35dd45ad5c2bfaa03c1d30.fit-2000w.jpg

People's Liberation Army soldiers march in formation during the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in Beijing on Oct. 1.Thomas Peter / Reuters file

July 21, 2020, 4:30 PM CST

The next U.S. administration will face an increasingly emboldened and aggressive China — one that has shown a growing willingness to use coercive measures to stake its territorial claims from the South China Sea to Taiwan to the Indian border region. Although neither Washington nor Beijing wants a war, there is a real risk that miscalculation could cause a crisis to spiral into a conflict between these two nuclear-armed powers.

To prevent conflict, the United States must maintain the military capability to deter China by demonstrating the ability to deny the success of such aggression or impose costs so high that Beijing steps back from the brink. The problem is this: If the Pentagon's own reported war games and analysis are to be believed, the current force may well be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

The Pentagon's analysis shows that the U.S. military is equipped to fight the last war. But many of the weapon systems that gave U.S. forces the edge in conflicts in the Middle East are incredibly vulnerable to attack by the advanced electronic warfare, cyber-capabilities and precision-guided missiles of China and Russia.

The U.S. must take urgent action to reverse this worrying trend. Maintaining and ultimately extending its military-technological edge over great-power competitors like China must become the Pentagon's highest investment priority — or it could lose that edge within the decade.

To stay on top, the next secretary of defense must advance a much bolder vision for sharpening the U.S. military-technology edge, as recommended in our recent Center for a New American Security report, "Sharpening the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration." Few U.S. national security challenges are of greater consequence and urgency than preventing conflict with China and promoting a peaceful Asia-Pacific region. It is fundamental to safeguarding global trade and shipping routes, democratic norms and ideals, the future of technological governance and the security and independence of key partners and allies.

The next secretary must begin by underwriting this innovation strategy with a series of "big bets" to drive investment by both the Defense Department and the private sector, align resource allocation across the military services and send a strong signal to the military services and industry on the direction of future funding.

These big bets, or key areas for technological innovation and investment, could include a next-generation command-and-control network that connects military systems across space, air, land, sea and undersea; artificial intelligence that can help commanders and operators make decisions better and faster than the adversary; and fleets of unmanned vehicles and vessels that can reduce the need to put service members at risk and resupply troops in the field.

Each military branch is working on developing these solutions. However, these efforts are too slow and small in scale. There needs to be a departmentwide approach that can put significant funding behind each priority area, coordinate research and development efforts across the services and demonstrate to private industry that it makes financial sense to work with the Defense Department.

Whether our proposed big bets are the right ones can and should be debated. The important thing is for Pentagon leadership to determine its priorities and coalesce around them and then build the team, processes, plan of action and investment strategy to pursue them relentlessly.

This vision should be supported by a committed team of senior officials appointed by the next secretary and able to work well in a team of strong peers (applying President Barack Obama's opening guidance to his transition team: "No ego, no drama, this is not about you"). This team should have diverse backgrounds, expertise, experiences and perspectives to contribute to better decision-making and organizational performance.

The secretary should be crystal clear on who in the team is empowered and accountable for what, as well as on how to realign incentives to support the plan's success. The deputy secretary and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be tasked with driving the implementation of this agenda, and engaging Congress as a critical partner should be an important part of the strategy.

For this agenda to succeed, however, the secretary needs to develop an investment strategy that puts substantial funding behind every big bet, working with each of the military branches to tee up a series of demonstrations and competitions for private companies to secure early-stage contracts that could lead to large-scale contracts.

This approach would help pull the most innovative prototypes across the Pentagon's acquisition "valley of death" — the dreaded gap between an innovative product's Pentagon-funded research and development and the eventual production contract — by showing the innovative companies that there is real political will and funding to make the transition from current platforms to new capabilities. It would also create a road map for industry, sending a strong signal that the Defense Department is committed to future funding and sponsorship, which is critical to securing private-sector investment.

The U.S. is at a high-stakes military inflection point and, potentially, a political turning point. This November, we must elect an administration that will make sharpening the U.S. military's advantage and strengthening deterrence its top defense priority. Achieving these goals is critical to maintaining the country's ability to prevent conflict and protect its people, interests, democracy, allies and partners in Asia — the very region on which the future prosperity and security of Americans most depends

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...es-are-gaining-u-s-pentagon-needs-ncna1234383
 
.
China's military capabilities are gaining on the U.S. The Pentagon needs to take bold steps.
American war games indicate that the current U.S. force may be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

200720-think-china-military-parade-se-234p_f42f4e49ea35dd45ad5c2bfaa03c1d30.fit-2000w.jpg

People's Liberation Army soldiers march in formation during the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in Beijing on Oct. 1.Thomas Peter / Reuters file

July 21, 2020, 4:30 PM CST

The next U.S. administration will face an increasingly emboldened and aggressive China — one that has shown a growing willingness to use coercive measures to stake its territorial claims from the South China Sea to Taiwan to the Indian border region. Although neither Washington nor Beijing wants a war, there is a real risk that miscalculation could cause a crisis to spiral into a conflict between these two nuclear-armed powers.

To prevent conflict, the United States must maintain the military capability to deter China by demonstrating the ability to deny the success of such aggression or impose costs so high that Beijing steps back from the brink. The problem is this: If the Pentagon's own reported war games and analysis are to be believed, the current force may well be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

The Pentagon's analysis shows that the U.S. military is equipped to fight the last war. But many of the weapon systems that gave U.S. forces the edge in conflicts in the Middle East are incredibly vulnerable to attack by the advanced electronic warfare, cyber-capabilities and precision-guided missiles of China and Russia.

The U.S. must take urgent action to reverse this worrying trend. Maintaining and ultimately extending its military-technological edge over great-power competitors like China must become the Pentagon's highest investment priority — or it could lose that edge within the decade.

To stay on top, the next secretary of defense must advance a much bolder vision for sharpening the U.S. military-technology edge, as recommended in our recent Center for a New American Security report, "Sharpening the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration." Few U.S. national security challenges are of greater consequence and urgency than preventing conflict with China and promoting a peaceful Asia-Pacific region. It is fundamental to safeguarding global trade and shipping routes, democratic norms and ideals, the future of technological governance and the security and independence of key partners and allies.

The next secretary must begin by underwriting this innovation strategy with a series of "big bets" to drive investment by both the Defense Department and the private sector, align resource allocation across the military services and send a strong signal to the military services and industry on the direction of future funding.

These big bets, or key areas for technological innovation and investment, could include a next-generation command-and-control network that connects military systems across space, air, land, sea and undersea; artificial intelligence that can help commanders and operators make decisions better and faster than the adversary; and fleets of unmanned vehicles and vessels that can reduce the need to put service members at risk and resupply troops in the field.

Each military branch is working on developing these solutions. However, these efforts are too slow and small in scale. There needs to be a departmentwide approach that can put significant funding behind each priority area, coordinate research and development efforts across the services and demonstrate to private industry that it makes financial sense to work with the Defense Department.

Whether our proposed big bets are the right ones can and should be debated. The important thing is for Pentagon leadership to determine its priorities and coalesce around them and then build the team, processes, plan of action and investment strategy to pursue them relentlessly.

This vision should be supported by a committed team of senior officials appointed by the next secretary and able to work well in a team of strong peers (applying President Barack Obama's opening guidance to his transition team: "No ego, no drama, this is not about you"). This team should have diverse backgrounds, expertise, experiences and perspectives to contribute to better decision-making and organizational performance.

The secretary should be crystal clear on who in the team is empowered and accountable for what, as well as on how to realign incentives to support the plan's success. The deputy secretary and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be tasked with driving the implementation of this agenda, and engaging Congress as a critical partner should be an important part of the strategy.

For this agenda to succeed, however, the secretary needs to develop an investment strategy that puts substantial funding behind every big bet, working with each of the military branches to tee up a series of demonstrations and competitions for private companies to secure early-stage contracts that could lead to large-scale contracts.

This approach would help pull the most innovative prototypes across the Pentagon's acquisition "valley of death" — the dreaded gap between an innovative product's Pentagon-funded research and development and the eventual production contract — by showing the innovative companies that there is real political will and funding to make the transition from current platforms to new capabilities. It would also create a road map for industry, sending a strong signal that the Defense Department is committed to future funding and sponsorship, which is critical to securing private-sector investment.

The U.S. is at a high-stakes military inflection point and, potentially, a political turning point. This November, we must elect an administration that will make sharpening the U.S. military's advantage and strengthening deterrence its top defense priority. Achieving these goals is critical to maintaining the country's ability to prevent conflict and protect its people, interests, democracy, allies and partners in Asia — the very region on which the future prosperity and security of Americans most depends

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/china-s-military-capabilities-are-gaining-u-s-pentagon-needs-ncna1234383

U.S. is facing other problems as well.

Its debt now stands at whopping 36-trillion. It is 132% of US GDP.
They are just printing currency and spending it.
China has surplus money.

In last 30 years they have succeeded in wars by making alliances.
No one now wants to go in a theatre of war accompanying US.
 
.
....

USA has 500+ 5th generation fighters China has 30 ( which is inferior to both F35 & F22)
USA has 10 carriers china has 2 and no clue how to fight a naval war using carriers
USA has over 60 nuclear attack submarines china has barley 10 all russian copies
USA has been winning world wars for 100 years their military training & doctrine is second none
China has never been in a modern armed conflict
USA has won wars thousands of miles away from USA .. v china cant even tame Veitnam or India
USA space technology aero engineering radar missles engines are 30 years ahead of CHINA
 
.
....

USA has 500+ 5th generation fighters China has 30 ( which is inferior to both F35 & F22)
USA has 10 carriers china has 2 and no clue how to fight a naval war using carriers
USA has over 60 nuclear attack submarines china has barley 10 all russian copies
USA has been winning world wars for 100 years their military training & doctrine is second none
China has never been in a modern armed conflict
USA has won wars thousands of miles away from USA .. v china cant even tame Veitnam or India
USA space technology aero engineering radar missles engines are 30 years ahead of CHINA

yep exactly what I thought, wonder why US is so paranoid about china.
 
.
The Americans are shivering. They know that China is coming sooner or later. All this China obsession is not a coincidence. It is a knee-jerk response. A calculated knee-jerk response.
 
.
China needs to surpass the US in military capabilities:

I have envisioned railguns on battlecruisers and battleships. In replace of their main guns put rail guns. When the technology is there, then go for it. Bring back the battleships and battlecruisers. No VLS, only CIWS and many gunned rail guns.

Where I would like to see China develop some new capabilities - semi-submersible surface fleet, and a 20.000 ton light carriers/LHD for STOVL. And especially a very large submarine fleet.

1) railgun battleships/battlecruisers (20K ton to 45K ton)
2) semi-submersible fleet
3) STOVL for CV-L
4) 1000 SSKs in 10-15 years

Be many steps ahead of them.

And have a policy of having 10% of missiles be EW proof.
 
.
....

USA has 500+ 5th generation fighters China has 30 ( which is inferior to both F35 & F22)
USA has 10 carriers china has 2 and no clue how to fight a naval war using carriers
USA has over 60 nuclear attack submarines china has barley 10 all russian copies
USA has been winning world wars for 100 years their military training & doctrine is second none
China has never been in a modern armed conflict
USA has won wars thousands of miles away from USA .. v china cant even tame Veitnam or India
USA space technology aero engineering radar missles engines are 30 years ahead of CHINA
So you are smarter than the Pentagon and leading defense experts in the US (e.g. RAND)? Maybe they should hire you to be the head of the DOD lol ... tell Mark Esper to quit because he said China is the biggest military threat to US hegemony in the Pacific.

China needs to surpass the US in military capabilities:

I have envisioned railguns on battlecruisers and battleships. In replace of their main guns put rail guns. When the technology is there, then go for it. Bring back the battleships and battlecruisers. No VLS, only CIWS and many gunned rail guns.

Where I would like to see China develop some new capabilities - semi-submersible surface fleet, and a 20.000 ton light carriers/LHD for STOVL. And especially a very large submarine fleet.

1) railgun battleships/battlecruisers (20K ton to 45K ton)
2) semi-submersible fleet
3) STOVL for CV-L
4) 1000 SSKs in 10-15 years

Be many steps ahead of them.

And have a policy of having 10% of missiles be EW proof.
China is the most serious military threat in the Pacific to the US since the Japanese Empire. If I were to toss out an estimate, the power of China would be somewhat similar to that of the 1930s Japanese military.
 
.
No one really knows China's true capabilities and real size of military budget, this is what worries US, no one likes to be in a situation of preparing to fight a wolf but finding out facing a tiger.
 
.
So you are smarter than the Pentagon and leading defense experts in the US (e.g. RAND)? Maybe they should hire you to be the head of the DOD lol ... tell Mark Esper to quit because he said China is the biggest military threat to US hegemony in the Pacific.


China is the most serious military threat in the Pacific to the US since the Japanese Empire. If I were to toss out an estimate, the power of China would be somewhat similar to that of the 1930s Japanese military.

1930 Japanese military was shit though, China's was just worse. They could not even defeat Soviet border police. If placed in Europe they would've gotten rolled.

They lost against the US too, because their economy was 1/8 the size of the US. The difference in economy is just too gigantic.

Why are you comparing China to imperial Japanese fascists?
 
.
So you are smarter than the Pentagon and leading defense experts in the US (e.g. RAND)? Maybe they should hire you to be the head of the DOD lol ... tell Mark Esper to quit because he said China is the biggest military threat to US hegemony in the Pacific.


China is the most serious military threat in the Pacific to the US since the Japanese Empire. If I were to toss out an estimate, the power of China would be somewhat similar to that of the 1930s Japanese military.


It’s not that China’s not a military threat, it’s just they will largely play second fiddle to the US military.


By 2035:

-the US will have over 2,000 fifth gen fighters, and a 6th gen will likely be well into testing.

-50-100 B-21 bombers

- 110-115 destroyers/cruisers

-50+ frigates

-50-55 SSNs, with Block 5 Virginia’s

-Columbia class boomers

-a full triad of advanced long range hypersonic strike capabilities and space based hypersonic defense architecture

-15,000-20,000 advanced long range cruise missiles

-Joint All Domain Command and Control

-the Army and Marines will likely have large inventories of ground launched antiship and land attack cruise and ballistic missiles. We already know the Army will purchase 2,400 Precision Strike Missiles which are essentially medium range quasi ballistic missiles.

This is just a general overview off the top of my head. The US is at the beginning stages of its largest military buildup since the Reagan era.
 
.
Have you ever considered the range of your planned whatever number of F-35 yet?
 
.
China's military capabilities are gaining on the U.S. The Pentagon needs to take bold steps.
American war games indicate that the current U.S. force may be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

200720-think-china-military-parade-se-234p_f42f4e49ea35dd45ad5c2bfaa03c1d30.fit-2000w.jpg

People's Liberation Army soldiers march in formation during the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in Beijing on Oct. 1.Thomas Peter / Reuters file

July 21, 2020, 4:30 PM CST

The next U.S. administration will face an increasingly emboldened and aggressive China — one that has shown a growing willingness to use coercive measures to stake its territorial claims from the South China Sea to Taiwan to the Indian border region. Although neither Washington nor Beijing wants a war, there is a real risk that miscalculation could cause a crisis to spiral into a conflict between these two nuclear-armed powers.

To prevent conflict, the United States must maintain the military capability to deter China by demonstrating the ability to deny the success of such aggression or impose costs so high that Beijing steps back from the brink. The problem is this: If the Pentagon's own reported war games and analysis are to be believed, the current force may well be insufficient to deter or defeat Chinese aggression in the future.

The Pentagon's analysis shows that the U.S. military is equipped to fight the last war. But many of the weapon systems that gave U.S. forces the edge in conflicts in the Middle East are incredibly vulnerable to attack by the advanced electronic warfare, cyber-capabilities and precision-guided missiles of China and Russia.

The U.S. must take urgent action to reverse this worrying trend. Maintaining and ultimately extending its military-technological edge over great-power competitors like China must become the Pentagon's highest investment priority — or it could lose that edge within the decade.

To stay on top, the next secretary of defense must advance a much bolder vision for sharpening the U.S. military-technology edge, as recommended in our recent Center for a New American Security report, "Sharpening the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration." Few U.S. national security challenges are of greater consequence and urgency than preventing conflict with China and promoting a peaceful Asia-Pacific region. It is fundamental to safeguarding global trade and shipping routes, democratic norms and ideals, the future of technological governance and the security and independence of key partners and allies.

The next secretary must begin by underwriting this innovation strategy with a series of "big bets" to drive investment by both the Defense Department and the private sector, align resource allocation across the military services and send a strong signal to the military services and industry on the direction of future funding.

These big bets, or key areas for technological innovation and investment, could include a next-generation command-and-control network that connects military systems across space, air, land, sea and undersea; artificial intelligence that can help commanders and operators make decisions better and faster than the adversary; and fleets of unmanned vehicles and vessels that can reduce the need to put service members at risk and resupply troops in the field.

Each military branch is working on developing these solutions. However, these efforts are too slow and small in scale. There needs to be a departmentwide approach that can put significant funding behind each priority area, coordinate research and development efforts across the services and demonstrate to private industry that it makes financial sense to work with the Defense Department.

Whether our proposed big bets are the right ones can and should be debated. The important thing is for Pentagon leadership to determine its priorities and coalesce around them and then build the team, processes, plan of action and investment strategy to pursue them relentlessly.

This vision should be supported by a committed team of senior officials appointed by the next secretary and able to work well in a team of strong peers (applying President Barack Obama's opening guidance to his transition team: "No ego, no drama, this is not about you"). This team should have diverse backgrounds, expertise, experiences and perspectives to contribute to better decision-making and organizational performance.

The secretary should be crystal clear on who in the team is empowered and accountable for what, as well as on how to realign incentives to support the plan's success. The deputy secretary and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be tasked with driving the implementation of this agenda, and engaging Congress as a critical partner should be an important part of the strategy.

For this agenda to succeed, however, the secretary needs to develop an investment strategy that puts substantial funding behind every big bet, working with each of the military branches to tee up a series of demonstrations and competitions for private companies to secure early-stage contracts that could lead to large-scale contracts.

This approach would help pull the most innovative prototypes across the Pentagon's acquisition "valley of death" — the dreaded gap between an innovative product's Pentagon-funded research and development and the eventual production contract — by showing the innovative companies that there is real political will and funding to make the transition from current platforms to new capabilities. It would also create a road map for industry, sending a strong signal that the Defense Department is committed to future funding and sponsorship, which is critical to securing private-sector investment.

The U.S. is at a high-stakes military inflection point and, potentially, a political turning point. This November, we must elect an administration that will make sharpening the U.S. military's advantage and strengthening deterrence its top defense priority. Achieving these goals is critical to maintaining the country's ability to prevent conflict and protect its people, interests, democracy, allies and partners in Asia — the very region on which the future prosperity and security of Americans most depends

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...es-are-gaining-u-s-pentagon-needs-ncna1234383





Explains why america is so shook recently regarding China. The americans know their days of being the sole superpower are over.
 
.
Explains why america is so shook recently regarding China. The americans know their days of being the sole superpower are over.

You hope
Only in your delusional world
The dollar
English language which is a global.language
The western culture and way of life
And the media Hollywood and music and living standard
Democratic living values
And huge disparity in personal.wealth per capita income

Gurantees both western and Usa hegomoney over China

No one is listening to some Chinese culture f upped closed autocratic way if life

I take new York LA or new England any day over Shanghai
I take American culture over some weird backward culture with a weird language any day from.china.

China is losing its status rapidly.

And yes we Indians have far more shared common goals and values with usa and the West any day over some dictatorial commie regime in China.

You Pakistanis enjoy you one and only ally

We go with the vast majority ie Europe usa and free world
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom