Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chinese Dragon Awakens - Chinese Military Build-up

Rate this topic


Captain Nate

Recommended Posts

The new DD (X) class are almost spooky in how high quality they are. You are right in that the payload per day capabilities of a DD(X) vs a battleship are not even close. But, given the political implications of the ability to direct fire from cruise missiles vs shells, it does make a certain sense to ramp up the production of the DD(X) and other systems.

Actually I was referring to the AGS on the DD(X). It is a 155mm Howitzer (62 caliber I believe) that can pump out 12 rounds/minute. It's the only real NSFS asset we will have in the foreseeable future. They are trying to give a destroyer the capacity to do something it can not. It can only hold 700 rounds of 155mm ammunition while a BB can hold 1600 rounds for the 16" (406mm) guns on top of 10,000+( I don't recall the actual number) rounds for the 5" guns (121mm). And all of this you get for the price of an initial production DD(X).

Offshore bombardment like we did really to good effect last in Beirut wouldn't be an easy sale today diplomacy wise. There is something very "sanitary" about a harpy going through some bad guys bathroom window versus a 16" taking out the bad guys building and neighboring buildings.
Given the political climate, your probably right. If we should or not, is a different question entirely.

The June issue of Imprimis had a really good article by a former muckety muck of the Navy discussing the risk/benefit analysis of performing the DARPA upgrades to the Iowa's versus plowing leaving them as is and going full bore into production with the new systems. I think the Navy will be much better off once the DD(X) gets underway and in fighting shape.

The DD(X)'s AGS will have a range of 100 miles, if we're lucky and they manage to get through the design phase without a hitch. It will have to be well within range of anti-ship missiles and will have to rely on it's stealth to stay alive. Where as with a BB, you may be able to see it, but you can't do crap about it.

Personally, I'm looking forward into seeing what they make of the LCS variants. Ever since they ditched the Pegasus, there hasn't been really nice shallow draft swift boat that can show some killing power. 45 knots with a 20 foot operational depth. That is scary.

It also has no credible weapons.

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/...M_msncap_05.jpg (Lockheed Martin)

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/...alconcpethr.png (General Dynamics)

Edited by Praxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually I was referring to the AGS on the DD(X). It is a 155mm Howitzer (62 caliber I believe) that can pump out 12 rounds/minute. It's the only real NSFS asset we will have in the foreseeable future. They are trying to give a destroyer the capacity to do something it can not. It can only hold 700 rounds of 155mm ammunition while a BB can hold 1600 rounds for the  16" (406mm) guns on top of 10,000+( I don't recall the actual number) rounds for the 5" guns (121mm). And all of this you get for the price of an initial production DD(X).
If I remember correctly though, the AGS will literally be able to drop a significant number of those rounds all at once on target so there is a force multiplying factor. I'm not familiar with it but the Army is intigrating a similar system with their new version their mobile howitzer systems. They can tie mutlitple howitzers together like multiple DD(X) can link together as if they are 1 and put act as if they a much bigger ship. Anyway, their guns are really an afterthought. I think most naval designers would take the space used for guns and devote it more missile for the precise reason you've got to be relatively close by modern standards to use them.
Given the political climate, your probably right. If we should or not, is a different question entirely.
Can't help but agree with you there.
 

It also has no credible weapons.

Now it doesn't. But I'm willing to bet that the Navy isn't going to build that fast of a boat with a shallow draft and a wicked propulsion system just to have an invisible helo delivery vehicle. Though, I can see them having good reason to have a near invisible ship that can park itself in shallow water and launch special forces types. For them, the gun system would make a great deal of sense as they are going to be up and close to the opposing forces. At that range, missiles would be counteroductive. Use the gun to give cover fire and rely on offshore assets to provide the majority of fire. Still, it will probably end up getting used in CnC roles or as a subhunter or some such role.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly though, the AGS will literally be able to drop a significant number of those rounds all at once on target so there is a force multiplying factor.

Yah, they fire them at varying angles and varying amount of powder so they can get up to 8 rounds to land at the exact same time. A single salvo from a BB can put 9, 16" rounds on target.

I'm not familiar with it but the Army is intigrating a similar system with their new version their mobile howitzer systems.
In their FCS (Future Combat System). It's the NLOS-C (non line of site-cannon) variant. They should have just kept the Crusader IMHO.

I think most naval designers would take the space used for guns and devote it more missile for the precise reason you've got to be relatively close by modern standards to use them.

Guns can reach a target in several minutes. A missile takes over an hour to reach the target. If an outnumbered unit is surrounded chances are a missile will get their too late.

But I'm willing to bet that the Navy isn't going to build that fast of a boat with a shallow draft and a wicked propulsion system just to have an invisible helo delivery vehicle. Though, I can see them having good reason to have a near invisible ship that can park itself in shallow water and launch special forces types. For them, the gun system would make a great deal of sense as they are going to be up and close to the opposing forces. At that range, missiles would be counteroductive. Use the gun to give cover fire and rely on offshore assets to provide the majority of fire. Still, it will probably end up getting used in CnC roles or as a subhunter or some such role.

I'm sure it will be done in the most exspensive inefficient manner.

Edited by Praxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns can reach a targets in several minutes. A missile takes over an hour to reach the target. If an outnumbered unit is surrounded chances our a missile will get their too late.
True, but the idea I read was the gun and another system on them that I didn't see on the current diagrams they would be able to hold their own for a while. Obviously, at the 1st sign of trouble they'd run like heck for cover.

Yes missiles would take to long to reach if a plane or helo is hot on their tail that they weren't able to handle themselves, but the idea I read was they were basically going to bristle like porcupine when it came to air assets that would attack them. The guns would provide enough cover against land and other seaborne assets as to give them enough time to get back under the cover of their operational units. Read he guys with real weapons.

I'm sure it will be done in the most exspensive inefficient manner.

I think this line qualifies as the understatement of the month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the idea I read was the gun and another system on them that I didn't see on the current diagrams they would be able to hold their own for a while. Obviously, at the 1st sign of trouble they'd run like heck for cover.

In the two different diagrams there were two different guns. The one on the LM boat was a 35mm millenium cannon and the one from GD has a 57mm cannon. Both of them had SeaRAM (replacement for Phalanx) which is what I think you were talking about. From what I've read it's very effective against incoming cruise missiles. I will have to give it this: it would be quite an effective anti-cruise missile/sub screen for the rest of the fleet. Giving it some more powerful weapons wouldn't hurt either.

Yes missiles would take to long to reach if a plane or helo is hot on their tail that they weren't able to handle themselves, but the idea I read was they were basically going to bristle like porcupine when it came to air assets that would attack them. The guns would provide enough cover against land and other seaborne assets as to give them enough time to get back under the cover of their operational units. Read he guys with real weapons.
I saw some videos from the 35mm gun that is going to be on the LM version (if it wins). It can knock out boats (like the one that hit the USS Cole) and helicopters very effectively. I don't know that much about the 57mm gun, but I believe it's Swedish.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4006/

I think this line qualifies as the understatement of the month.

Just imagine what kind of weapon systems we would have if the tree of liberty was refreshed (so to speak).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw some videos from the 35mm gun that is going to be on the LM version (if it wins). It can knock out boats (like the one that hit the USS Cole) and helicopters very effectively.
AHEAD should make the sea whiz look downright amateur if it works right and they can get it deployed. Sadly from the article, it does look like the Navy is relegating them to the role of hurling UAV's and helos and playing subcatcher. Which is ironic because it doesn't have any sort of ASROC array that I saw. Maybe I missed it. Bit of a change from what I orginially I heard it's mission was but that is the military for you.
I don't know that much about the 57mm gun, but I believe it's Swedish.

Bofors, with the exception of the whole Sgt. York debacle (and that wasn't their fault) manages to put out some fine equipment. There is a reason they have been around for over a century. Ironic and off topic but didn't Alfred Nobel found or at least own Bofors at one point? Funny, the peace prize being awarded by some of the most amazing cannon makers in the world.

edit for content

Edited by scottkursk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a somewhat related topic to the original post, has anyone read about the three Chinese defectors who are applying for aslyum in Australia? I'll try to find a link...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/062705.htm

Also somewhat related:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/agent-...l?oneclick=true

Edited by Spinnach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With its economy growing nine percent a year and the US/China trade deficit growing twenty-five percent a year there is no denying China is becoming a force to be reckoned with. Although China has been increasingly embracing capitalism and has opened itself to the international market the Communist party and Hu Jintao show no sign of releasing its grip on the country. Along with its booming economy China has been spending more and more money on its military power, which seems to dramatically improve year after year. With no real regional enemies many wonder what’s this military build up for? China has also been increasing more and more pressure on Taiwan (which China sees as a rouge state) threatening to enforce its “One China Policy” with coercion. Will China turn to capitalism and western ideas? Or will its red leaders continue to use force to implement its policies? I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With its economy growing nine percent a year and the US/China trade deficit growing twenty-five percent a year there is no denying China is becoming a force to be reckoned with.  Although China has been increasingly embracing capitalism and has opened itself to the international market the Communist party and Hu Jintao show no sign of releasing its grip on the country.  Along with its booming economy China has been spending more and more money on its military power, which seems to dramatically improve year after year. With no real regional enemies many wonder what’s this military build up for?  China has also been increasing more and more pressure on Taiwan (which China sees as a rouge state) threatening to enforce its “One China Policy” with coercion. Will China turn to capitalism and western ideas?  Or will its red leaders continue to use force to implement its policies?  I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sorry, I wrote this at the beginning of the forum. I don’t know how it ended up here. I don’t mean to sound like Mr. Johnny Come Lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks. Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly. Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks.

Whose military capacity? China's?

Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly.
But this presupposes that we would retaliate quickly. We did not retaliate quickly even to direct attacks against America on 9/11.

We have not retaliated against Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Iran even though they are sending terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq.

We do not retaliate when China fires upon and forces down our reconnaissance aircraft -- instead we apologize.

And when China ignores patents and copyright laws, we go to the W.T.O. or the U.N.

Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.
What will make the hard-liners leave?

We have the military power to utterly destroy any of our potential enemies -- China included; sadly, we do not seem to have the will power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what would happen to China if they invaded Taiwan. Their military capacity would be zero within 3 weeks. Taiwan would be retaken. The US would buy its cheap crap from somewhere else. Its not going to happen. They can dream up all the EMP/computer virus weapons they want but the end result will be the same. In order to be successful they would have to invade Taiwan, Japan, India, Western Russia, and knock out the US Navy all at once so no-one could retaliate quickly. Then they would have to nuke the USA before we nuked them and we all know how those scenarios work. No one wins those. I think its more likely a less hard-line govt will come into place and they will be content with being a somewhat mixed economy.

I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan. Our only hope would be to stop them in the process. The problem is that the attack would probably come suddenly and swiftly there would be no time for us to align our forces in time to intervene. We might have one carrier in the area but the Chinese would easily sink it. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers from Taiwan. If we stopped trading with them it would most likely hurt us a lot more than it would them. They are the largest market in the world and produce a lot more high-evolved products in the US than I think you realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan. Our only hope would be to stop them in the process. The problem is that the attack would probably come suddenly and swiftly there would be no time for us to align our forces in time to intervene.

If we had the will power, we could defeat the Chinese air and naval forces, mine all of their harbors and close the straits of Taiwan, leaving any invasion force cut-off from re-supply.

We might have one carrier in the area but the Chinese would easily sink it.
How? Are you aware of the layered defenses that accompany a U.S. carrier at sea?

I seriously doubt we would be able to remove hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers from Taiwan.
Getting hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Taiwan would require a Normandy-style amphibious assault -- and we would detect such a build-up.

A more likely scenario, in my opinion, would be an airborne assault on Taipei to seize the government and declare reunification. The U.S. would probably protest to the U.N., who would do nothing whatsoever, and after a few weeks and countless Chinese assurances that Taiwan would "remain free", the whole thing would be a fait accompli.

If we stopped trading with them it would most likely hurt us a lot more than it would them. They are the largest market in the world and produce a lot more high-evolved products in the US than I think you realize.
You think the market in China is larger than the U.S.? There are more people in China, but their total purchasing power is a fraction of the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think that the Chinese could sink one of our AEGIS-protected supercarrier groups, much less that it would be "easy?"

AEGIS can detect the missiles the Chinese have but only under cretin conditions. Plus even "if" (and that’s a big if) we did detect the missiles our counter measures are not that great. AEGIS is old, and the Chinese by now most likely know how to operate around it. Plus the Chinese have more missiles to fire then we have to defend ourselves with. If China fired 15 missiles from different areas we probably would counter some, but many would end up hitting the carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEGIS can detect the missiles the Chinese have but only under cretin conditions.

What are "cretin conditions"?

Plus even "if" (and that’s a big if) we did detect the missiles our counter measures are not that great.  AEGIS is old, and the Chinese by now most likely know how to operate around it.
Why do you make this assumption?

Plus the Chinese have more missiles to fire then we have to defend ourselves with. If China fired 15 missiles from different areas we probably would counter some, but many would end up hitting the carrier.
The layered defenses of a carrier battle group are designed to detect and defeat far more than 15 missiles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The layered defenses of a carrier battle group are designed to detect and defeat far more than 15 missiles.

Aggreed. Ideally, a single AEGIS equipped ship could handle 15 missiles inbound much less a layered defence around a barrier around a capital ship. Plus, as mentioned in previous posts, even the Soviets short of actually inserting nukes into the carriers they didn't think they could sink one. But then remember our carrier battle group is effectively networked so yes, using the Soviet idea of throw enough missiles at one direction and one is bound to hit. But I'd be willing to lay odds it's going to be a picket ship that takes the bullet and not a carrier or one of the nuclear Navy.

And as mentioned in previous posts, the Chinese using going to the point of a nuke would cause such a negative reaction, assuming we didn't respond in kind and send them further back into the stone age, the diplomatic fallout would be bad for business. And when it all boils down to it that is what this is all about. Business.

Or you could call it face. It's a large part of the reason they are trying to acquire Unocal is so they can have bragging rights. As I said in previous posts China is like Saddam Husein: as long as was rattling his sabre and playing dictator he enjoyed being a part of the world club. It was once we actually got around to calling his bluff that things really started to suck and he was relegated to having his breakfast menu blogged by some national guardsman.

Sabre rattling and chest pounding is good for business as they see it. They know actually doing something as stupid as actually going to war is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the United States should defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion because of the principle of world liberation that sent them into Iraq. I watched a recent documentary on Canada's CBC, and they interviewed a Chinese official, who said that all it would take for them to invade Taiwan is for Taiwan to declare their independence. Taiwan is independent de facto, and Taipei is one of the strongest economies in the world. Just like France helped the revolutionary America, so the United States should defend Taiwan, and more, because its heritage is one as the first free men in history.

My understanding is that Nixon is the guy who opened up trade with China, perhaps because other of America's trade partners were already trading with them. So for decades the best weapon against a communist regime has been de-activated: economic isolation. Now China is an important aspect of all the economies of the world. A devasting war in that region will be devastating to all the world.

I think the best thing is for capitalism to change the political climate in China. I think an internal revolution would be best for the world. However, if China were to attack then we must defend Taiwan, and I think this is the United States' stance today. The world is not going to stop trading with China, no matter if that is the moral course.

If China invades Taiwan then Taiwan must be defended. This war would be bad for the world. But the United States is partly to blame given their foreign policy after WWII. The devastation to the world economies is the price the world will pay for their mistakes in the past. The proper action would be to defend Taiwan, and defend it with vigor and moral confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best thing is for capitalism to change the political climate in China.  I think an internal revolution would be best for the world. 

That is one thing I think everyone here can agree on. I remember back in the 80's ARI produced tracts called "Captialist Solutions to Apartheid" Does anyone else remember those? Little brown paper jobs. Just an aside.

My understanding is that Nixon is the guy who opened up trade with China, perhaps because other of America's trade partners were already trading with them.  So for decades the best weapon against a communist regime has been de-activated: economic isolation.  Now China is an important aspect of all the economies of the world.  A devasting war in that region will be devastating to all the world. 
An example of how capitalism cures many things. Nobody in their right mind would call China capitalist. But even the slightest injection of market forces into the most hideous Maoist collectivist society has helped transform China into its current fascist state form. Free trade creates partnerships and you are less likely to start shooting when you are trading becuase of the common interest. I doubt Castro would still be in power if American dollars flowed freely in Cuba but that is a split topic.......

Mind you, that's like saying you transformed from Soviet Russia to Fascist Germany. Hopefully with the natural role that money and an increasing size of the middle class will help but that is slow. Hopefully the internet will help the speed of change along with the success of Hong Kong and Maccau. Though I do feel sorry for the people of both colonies and hope the best for the people of Taiwan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Castro would still be in power if American dollars flowed freely in Cuba but that is a split topic...
I agree. Decades ago, one might have been excused for trying a trade embargo. Experience shows that this does not bring down dictators. I'm reminded of this quote:

a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, ..., with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed, germ-eaten creature, as a claim to a few grains of the creature's rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice grains gather into gems.
Dictators have shown repeatedly that they can use force and fear to create a heirarchy of enough ruled creature for each of the rulers... enough to let the grains turn into gems for the rulers.

Consider this: even if one expects to go to war with a country, it makes sense to have been trading with them right upto the point that one really turns hostile. I think it would be much easier to gather intelligence about a country if many American businessmen were visiting there anyway. The negative, ofcourse, is that such trade would also make it easier for the potentially hostile nation to become a stronger opponent (e.g. by buying arms and generally becoming technically more advanced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this: even if one expects to go to war with a country, it makes sense to have been trading with them right upto the point that one really turns hostile. I think it would be much easier to gather intelligence about a country if many American businessmen were visiting there anyway. The negative, ofcourse, is that such trade would also make it easier for the potentially hostile nation to become a stronger opponent (e.g. by buying arms and generally becoming technically more advanced).

True. Obviously the greater presence we have the easier it is to spy. Plus the more we trade the better we understand how people work on a philospohical level. I can say with a good confidence that after watching my clients portfolios briefly I can tell how they think. Though there is a point somewhere that we have to draw a line about dealing with potentially hostile countries ala China. I may be dropping context but I could not see rationally allowing Ratheon to sell Los Angeles class attack boats to China. I know the more militant liberterian viewpoint is sell to everyone and anyone. My question then becomes a slippery slope of what market force determines who's the bad guy we don't sell to.

Still, there is something about the fact that one of our greatest allies, Israel, is selling arms and advice to China. I don't have a problem with them selling arms because the arms industry is a critical industry in Israel but there is just something about it I can't get over. Sure, the Russians and the French far surpass what the Israeli's sell them arms wise but still it bugs me.

It would be like us selling patriots and uav's to Syria or Jordan.

edit for proper analogy

Edited by scottkursk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be restrictions on what can be sold to countries we may be at war with in the future.

Here is another quandry. When allowing trade, governments tend to go soft on morally criticising the trading partner. (e.g. U.S. politicians staying a bit soft on China because there is so much busniess at stake.) This type of compromise is unacceptable. In a mixed economy, the China-trade-lobby will influence politicians, but ideally there should be no softening. Indeed, even trade should not be encouraged, only allowed.

Needless to say, altruistic foreign aid to potential enemies is ridiculous -- unless it can be justified for some other reason (e.g. getting something in return).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Decades ago, one might have been excused for trying a trade embargo. Experience shows that this does not bring down dictators.

Trouble is, we have never tried a trade embargo against Cuba. While restrictions exist on American trade with Cuba, sales of food and agricultural products are allowed.

Furthermore, America has never tried to prevent Cuban trade with other nations.

A real, naval-blockade trade embargo would prevent any outside assistance from reaching the island. No food, no oil, no medicine, nothing.

How long would Castro last under those conditions? I don't know. But we can't say that embargoes have proven ineffective against dictators, because, as far as I know, we have never really tried one.

How long would the Iranian regime last under a total trade embargo? At present they are selling billions of dollars of oil and importing, among other things, food and weapons. How long would the regime last if all trade were stopped? I'd sure love to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, we have never tried a trade embargo against Cuba.  While restrictions exist on American trade with Cuba, sales of food and agricultural products are allowed.

Furthermore, America has never tried to prevent Cuban trade with other nations.

A real, naval-blockade trade embargo would prevent any outside assistance from reaching the island.  No food, no oil, no medicine, nothing. 

Closest thing we have to that is North Korea. They are about as isolated as a nation can get and I think we all know how well that has worked. Sure, China has always been a trading partner to provide support but even then their trading was limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...