End of the American Era?

[Awol]

Edit: Awol latest I read on the Indian sub programme was that they were ordering diesel subs for nuclear prices. But I agree that there is a lot of room for growth there and with indigenous design too. For all the Chinese industrial power, all their major weapon systems are Russian clones.

Link

From a recent RUSI paper I read:

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, former

chief of the Indian Naval Staff, has stated

that ‘in the era of globalisation, every

trading nation is necessarily a maritime

nation’.Accordingly, with all-party

and popular consent, India is currently

constructing thirty-eight warships of all

types from offshore patrol vessels to

aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered

attack submarines, to give material force

to the admiral’s words.

Very much focused on the British situation at the moment, but the whole thing is worth a read mate.

[ender4]

Is military might as important nowadays for global dominance?

doesn't economic might rule instead?

[The_Rev]

Surely they can't be 50-60 years behind, that would give them technology from the 50's?

What's wrong with that concept? Basic infantry weapons (tanks, jets, assault rifles and the like) havent changed that much since the fifties and sixties. China has a nuke, but does it have the surveillance that the USA has? It doesnt have any kind of satellite and GPS network at the moment, only the Americans and Russians have that, though the EU one is coming online in a couple of years. Do China have an anti missile defence?

Any world war now would be so **** up though. I mean, who would attack who? The UK is nothing compared to what it was at the height of the British Empire between the first and second world wars when we could call on more men and resources than pretty much anybody else, but nobody would **** with us because we could just sail a submarine to within a hundred miles of their capital city and nuke it. Hopefully everybody knows that war is more futile than ever because of the nuke. It's about who has the most money these days, not the biggest guns.

[Awol]

Is military might as important nowadays for global dominance?

doesn't economic might rule instead?

If you look at the major economic powers in the world - the US, EU, China, India, Russia, Japan - they've all got serious military forces or in the case of the EU are protected by the umbrella of other major military powers. Military hard power is the bedrock that underpins economic soft power and it always has done.

[leviramsey]

Surely they can't be 50-60 years behind, that would give them technology from the 50's?

China isn't building nuclear carriers (the USN carrier fleet is all-nuclear for the foreseeable future), which gives a massive strategic advantage to the US (since a conventionally fueled carrier has to be refueled every few days, you can cripple it by taking out its supply line). Add to that the various electronic gizmos and the accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn't, and 50 years is definitely reasonable. Now, it's not going to take the Chinese 50 years to catch up if they choose to, but in that time, there will likely be further advancements from the US side (some of the stuff that's going into the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers is off the hook).

[Ads]

That was a good read Awol. The state of the Royal Navy is almost as depressing as the state of the Villa!

[OutByEaster?]

Surely they can't be 50-60 years behind, that would give them technology from the 50's?

China isn't building nuclear carriers (the USN carrier fleet is all-nuclear for the foreseeable future), which gives a massive strategic advantage to the US (since a conventionally fueled carrier has to be refueled every few days, you can cripple it by taking out its supply line). Add to that the various electronic gizmos and the accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn't, and 50 years is definitely reasonable. Now, it's not going to take the Chinese 50 years to catch up if they choose to, but in that time, there will likely be further advancements from the US side (some of the stuff that's going into the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers is off the hook).

Understood on the nuclear thing, I can see how that makes a huge difference to the effectiveness of a carrier.

On the electronic stuff, I was a little concerned, seeing as China manufactures a huge amount of the worlds consumer electronics and the average modern day small fishing trawler has more computer power than a fifties aircraft carrier, I'd be surprised if they were more than a decade behind surely?

(Of course, even if they are bang up to date on technology the point on fueling means they're still a good ways back.)

[OutByEaster?]

China has a nuke, but does it have the surveillance that the USA has? It doesnt have any kind of satellite and GPS network at the moment, only the Americans and Russians have that, though the EU one is coming online in a couple of years. Do China have an anti missile defence?

China has had its own network of satellites since it launched its first one in 1970. It has a decent sized space programme and has in the recent past joined the whole star wars thing by proving it has a system which it can use to shoot down satellites. I'm presuming that if they've got that then they've also worked on a conventional missile defence.

[Ads]

Surely they can't be 50-60 years behind, that would give them technology from the 50's?

China isn't building nuclear carriers (the USN carrier fleet is all-nuclear for the foreseeable future), which gives a massive strategic advantage to the US (since a conventionally fueled carrier has to be refueled every few days, you can cripple it by taking out its supply line). Add to that the various electronic gizmos and the accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn't, and 50 years is definitely reasonable. Now, it's not going to take the Chinese 50 years to catch up if they choose to, but in that time, there will likely be further advancements from the US side (some of the stuff that's going into the Gerald R. Ford-class carriers is off the hook).

Understood on the nuclear thing, I can see how that makes a huge difference to the effectiveness of a carrier.

On the electronic stuff, I was a little concerned, seeing as China manufactures a huge amount of the worlds consumer electronics and the average modern day small fishing trawler has more computer power than a fifties aircraft carrier, I'd be surprised if they were more than a decade behind surely?

(Of course, even if they are bang up to date on technology the point on fueling means they're still a good ways back.)

The most important element on a carrier is its air-arm. If you haven’t got the right air frames on board or the experienced naval aviators, then you’re not going to be particularly effective. The Chinese naval aviation programme hasn’t begun yet. The idea that they’d fly against the 7th Fleet over Taiwan in a few years time for example, would be ridiculous. NATO standard pilots flying aircraft a couple of generations out of your league? Turkey shoot.

You cannot start a carrier programme from scrath, base it off an ex-Soviet hull and expect to be anywhere near the standard or technology of a USN CVN or its escorts.

[Ads]

The US Naval War College estimates that its costs $10 billion to put a single CBG into the field. The US has 11 of these. China hasn’t got the money to compete with that. Jesus nobody has!