Current strategy of Chinese military in hegemony conflict with United States. What is the end game here ?

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

I have doubts about the importance of navies in the future.
Small, light weight, low cost, long range, un-manned flying drones seem very effective.
Perhaps naval ships can support flying drones.  Or perhaps naval ship themselves will be drones too.
Put a few sailors on board just in case someone remotely hacks the drones,
so that the whole armada of drones can not be taken over by a single hacker.

[frankfurter + 562]

The OP may wish to consider the plight of Assange and others who have exposed "the end game" and the implications thereof. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You can private message me or another moderator if you need some help with your account.

 Maybe you can tell the other two moderators to knock off the surreptitious editing of my posts, which is both rude and annoying. 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/9/2020 at 8:25 AM, Rob Plant said:

China is some way behind NATO and in fairness Russia in the development of its fleet from a technological standpoint.

You also have to remember that the communists tend to omit stupid things like safety systems and redundancies for navigation, cooling, etc. They reverse engineer things but skip those redundancies because they cost more money and take more time to build. They also make manufacturing much more complex. Can you imagine working around a reactor that has had minimal shielding or no real safety systems? One mishap and its all over for that boat. And the communists are such a hard line, if you were an engineer and your boss said he wanted something to be so, you have three choices. Make it so, lie about making it so because chances are those in power won't know the difference, or state your objections and end up in an interment camp where you'll probably die along with your family. That is probably the biggest thing holding the communists back, and until they change that way of thinking they will always have problems with technology, so it is easier to copy(steal) tech than to develop it. That means they will always be behind, free thinking is not allowed so new development will be thwarted.

[frankfurter + 562]

6 hours ago, SERWIN said:

You also have to remember that the communists tend to omit stupid things like safety systems and redundancies for navigation, cooling, etc. They reverse engineer things but skip those redundancies because they cost more money and take more time to build. They also make manufacturing much more complex. Can you imagine working around a reactor that has had minimal shielding or no real safety systems? One mishap and its all over for that boat. And the communists are such a hard line, if you were an engineer and your boss said he wanted something to be so, you have three choices. Make it so, lie about making it so because chances are those in power won't know the difference, or state your objections and end up in an interment camp where you'll probably die along with your family. That is probably the biggest thing holding the communists back, and until they change that way of thinking they will always have problems with technology, so it is easier to copy(steal) tech than to develop it. That means they will always be behind, free thinking is not allowed so new development will be thwarted.

Clearly, you know nothing of military strategy and tactics, nor of the related economics.  The "communists" have strong reasons for their actions. If you do not see, that is your problem to be blinded by bigotry, not theirs. The evil communists will use your blindness to their advantage.  

[Papillon + 485]

16 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Maybe you can tell the other two moderators to knock off the surreptitious editing of my posts

Are the handlers taking over again sir? Try turning off and on again, this usually works for me. Or perhaps Mr Smith and Bob D could proceed with some form of rebooting or update for you?    /sarc

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

10 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Can you imagine working around a reactor that has had minimal shielding or no real safety systems?

The track record across the globe relating to the safety of nuclear installation is abysmal so to single out communist regimes reflects either gross bias or ignorance.

[Capt. Lauren Dowsett + 8]

Trump Tariff's are removing all this capitol to maintain these "cheap" ships, with no capitol for basic maintenance, ships rust, I think you get the point, need I say more...…………...

Capt. Lauren N. Dowsett

[specinho + 439]

Dear all........ as we mentioned before, everything might have been running in a cycle. World policing had been a simple righteous act - reaching out to the country (ies) in trouble(s). It was then upgraded to become a complex business-peace-political mode.

We might have seen sample of change above in art sense (witnessed few years back in a remote tiny dot)......... it might be time we put everything back to simplicity again..... or no??

[Marcin2 + 724]

Interesting observation

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 724]

specinfo This blue print makes your posts difficult to read.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 1/8/2020 at 12:15 PM, Marcin said:

Chinese military is technologically very backward in comparison to US military.

 

 

 

For contemporary US-China hegemony conflict the most important are naval assets.

 

Navy is the major military force used to control predominant transport routes of the modern world: sea lanes.  Sea lanes ensure both: access to important natural resources (like hydrocarbons) and safety of global trade - the backbone of modern economic development.

It is also important that US (like earlier British Empire) is mainly naval empire, contrary to Russia and China which are both land based empires. The reason is US is located in sparsely populated and isolated continent of America, and Russia and China are located at the center of the world in supercontinent Eurasia. US location is good for safety of its population but bad for maintaining hegemony.

Where technologically are different types of Chinese Navy ships:

Chinese aircraft carriers: US technology was there in 1948 (after Midway class carriers, before Forrestal class carriers): 71 years ago,

Chinese destroyers: US technology was there in 1985 (early Ticonderoga class cruisers/Arleigh Burke class destroyers, after Mk 41 VLS system was installed): 34 years ago,

Chinese frigates: US technology was there in 1985 (the same as with destroyers): 34 years ago,

Chinese nuclear attack submarines: US technology was there in 1967 (early Sturgeon/637 class vessels): 52 years ago,

Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines: US technology was there in 1961 (around Ethan Allen class/Lafayette class): 58 years ago.

Chinese Naval strategy makes use of its main advantages:

- low manufacturing costs,

- large industrial base in shipbuilding industry and generally the ability to scale up fast any manufacturing task,

- relatively modern missile technology.

Chinese strategy also makes use of US Navy main disadvantages:

-         long time of procurement processes of new vessels (up to 10 years),

-         very high inertia and slow changes of strategy in comparison to changing global dynamics in Navy warfare (15+ years).

The solution is achieving numerical superiority in areas where Chinese Navy is technologically near peer competitor with US Navy, with relatively small budget. With this solution Chinese Navy becomes in fast pace the near peer competitor of US Navy while buying additional time needed to close significant technological gaps.

In surface combatants:

Chinese Navy is close to US Navy in capabilities of destroyers and frigates.

Recent developments in missile technology negated usefulness of smaller number of larger vessels vs larger number of smaller vessels

and also uselfulness of aircraft carriers vs near peer competitors.

Chinese Navy also extensively utilizes smaller but capable vessels: corvettes for littoral missions in EEZ.

Chinese Navy build up, ships launched in 2019 versus maximum number of ships of the same contemporary classes launched in any year by US Navy:

17 Chinese 56A type corvettes launched in 2019  – 4 US Littoral Combat Ships (both classes together) launched in 2018,

11 Chinese multirole destroyers launched in 2019 (8 of 052D type and 3 of 055 type) – 5 Arleigh Burke multirole destroyers launched in 1994.

With the current pace of building new vessels China aims to achieve numerical parity and later superiority vs US Navy in Pacific about 2022-2023 and if needed numerical superiority against all fleets present in East Asia around 2025-2026.

Chinese ships are on average 2-3 times cheaper than their US equivalents.

The US has a legitimate "Blue Water Navy". This means we can carry out missions thousands of miles away from home with captains who are quite literally "Master and Commander" (great movie BTW). There's far more to sending out a task force than most here can conceive of (although I suspect Rob Plant knows a thing or three). A top down control system such as the Chinese follow is hopeless for the kind of independence of action needed when far from any port. 

The Chinese do have a littoral navy and let's examine the meaning of that word, shall we? OK, hope you've all googled it. Their "navy" is comparable to our coast guard.

[remake it + 288]

15 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The Chinese do have a littoral navy and let's examine the meaning of that word, shall we? OK, hope you've all googled it. Their "navy" is comparable to our coast guard.

It is good that the West think this way and forget that the third nation to put a human into space was China.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

It is good that the West think this way and forget that the third nation to put a human into space was China.

How's that Taiwan election working out for you? Maybe you should have spent more time trolling Taiwanese web sites. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

Interesting observation.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

How's that Taiwan election working out for you? Maybe you should have spent more time trolling Taiwanese web sites. 

China has mastered the long game.

[Marcin2 + 724]

Interesting view.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 724]

specinfo I must acknowledge I do not understand this art joke, please explain ?

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

 Stay low-profile, bide your time, they are playing long game. Great Wall they were building for a hundreds of years, different time perspective.

If you can see it @Marcin then it surely must be blindingly obvious to those highly educated Americans here.

[Marcin2 + 724]

Interesting twist of discussion.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

Guys you are an odd couple, but for some reason need each other a lot.

Indeed sir. He talks to an alleged bot every single day while telling others daily of his apparent intellect. Please ponder the irony of that if you will. 

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

I do not like yours and your compatriots arrogant way of thinking

I stand corrected, it appears to maybe not be intellect but this perhaps? 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Papillon

[0R0 + 6,251]

Just wanted to say that the discussion of the China Naval expansion between Marcin and Jan Van Eck is assembling a much better picture than either is doing on their own. Very good job to you both.

Having seen what Chinese munitions look like back in the day, I can say that the users would be taking the kind of risks to themselves as putting out a cigarette in kerosine or shooting Ukrainian airplanes out of your sky. Safety is a low ranking priority. It is about inflicting damage on your enemy, not about surviving the battle. They have a jihadi attitude towards their soldiers, their equipment is most akin to a suicide vest with an option to leave it behind and run away. That said, I am not up to date, and they have copied the entire Russian arsenal and are producing it at a rate that Russia could only dream of. 

China is having a tough time obtaining food after the loss of their swine herd. They are also low on vegetable oil stocks. Their Brazilian supplies are in question because of the tendency of Brazil to switch to sugar and corn ethanol when oil prices are higher. Mid 60s Brent would do it. The current solar minimum is already longer than the prior ones on record. It causes reduced crop yields due to extended wet seasons that prevent mechanized farming. E.g. this year, US corn crop did not complete harvest and 8% of it remains in the field after a shortened planting season.. I am beginning to think that China is going to be paying very high prices for their US ag import quota. That it isn't the quantity they will be getting but the price that will get them to hit the rather high goals. 

Re, China's PPP adjusted economy does measure as bigger than the US  by quite a margin. That is in line with their vehicle sales having been greater than the US'. But it requires quality adjustments. E.g. Food safety brings upper class Chinese to buy at Walmart and European supermarket chains  in order to get safe food that they can't get in the market stalls. They pay 2-3 times as much for it. Producing to specification is also a difficult issue. Practically everything has to be checked by the buyer to confirm specs were actually met, because of their weak productivity and quality culture. Beyond having their products copied, S Korean firms have dropped China production because it requires so much supervision and isn't that cheap, their imports from China are disappearing. They have improved, but not to the extent they need to so we could read their PPP as an actual parity. The recent generation of entrants to the workforce in China are 40 some % fewer than before and better educated and do not go into manufacturing. Export producers don't hire them because they are very likely to get a better offer and skip the job. 

China manufacturing PMI has been weak for a decade. Their historic position as the world's workshop is fading away rapidly. It is not obvious that with food accounting for ~30% of median income, they will keep intact with food inflation at its current 20% level due to swine flu and their rice blight. Their ability to import more depends on the global market's ability to absorb more Chinese exports, which it can't, as China is just too big and it already saturated its markets. 

  

[remake it + 288]

11 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Their historic position as the world's workshop is fading away rapidly.

Your long and detailed post is riddled with inaccuracies and it is a credit to you that your analysis of China's economy is equally flawed as it gives the lie to the phrase that one cannot be consistent all the time.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

Yes dissent and opinions are easy but being able to show why another point of view is valid requires a degree of knowledge and understanding of context and the binary mindset cannot fathom this nor does it appear to even try in most of the threads which continue to degenerate in name calling et cetera.

 

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your long and detailed post is riddled with inaccuracies and it is a credit to you that your analysis of China's economy is equally flawed as it gives the lie to the phrase that one cannot be consistent all the time.

 

Hmmm, how's that binary mindset working out for you, remake it.

[0R0 + 6,251]

How about Remake it, the bot provide some factual components in his criticisms? I am sure his handlers can make the effort.