"Would the U.S. Navy Lose a War to Russia or China?" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleTime to upgrade your BMP1s and 2s?
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 10 Jan 2020 12:46 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Navy has concentrated too much of its combat power in big, expensive ships that are too few in number to win in battle against Chinese or Russian forces. That's the stark warning in a new report from the Washington, D.C. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "The U.S. Navy has been slow to address the changing threat environment," Bryan Clark and Timothy Walton wrote in the December 2019 report. "As a result, today's surface force lacks the size, resilience, and offensive capacity to effectively support the U.S. National Defense Strategy's approach of deterring aggression by degrading, delaying, or defeating enemy attacks."…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Bigby Wolf | 10 Jan 2020 2:09 p.m. PST |
Ermm … No, not at all, never in a million years. Despite recent budget, policy and procurement problems, America still has an amazingly powerful navy. The most powerful in the world. Russia and China have – comparatively speaking – nothing of consequence. |
Thresher01 | 10 Jan 2020 9:44 p.m. PST |
We wouldn't lose one to both, even if they teamed up together, and coordinated efficiently. The USN is the only true, "blue water" navy on the planet, today. |
Bigby Wolf | 10 Jan 2020 10:20 p.m. PST |
|
Zephyr1 | 10 Jan 2020 10:23 p.m. PST |
"Russia and China have comparatively speaking nothing of consequence." Plus, whatever they have is probably tracked to within inches every minute. Knowing where they are wins most of the battle right there… |
Uparmored | 11 Jan 2020 12:06 a.m. PST |
Shouldn't get complacent though. Should always be ready for the alien invasion |
ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa | 11 Jan 2020 3:36 a.m. PST |
Assuming any such conflict took place outside the reach of any countries land based assets – the US Navy. If they actually get there the Russian's might give a good account of themselves. The PLA navy is probably more mechanically reliable, but a more unknown quantity. Though I suspect being aware of potential short comings and force disparity they'd probably send their floating nationalist militia fishing fleet in order to claim the US killed 'innocent' Chinese citizens about their lawful business on the high seas and claim the propaganda victory. In this case I'd suggest a number of prison ships, a battalion of marines with riot gear, a lot of zip ties and the worlds press would be more use than a CV battlegroup. |
SBminisguy | 11 Jan 2020 12:28 p.m. PST |
Dunno. I know wargames are a poor predictor of reality, but we did a small meeting engagement Harpoon scenario set in the South China Sea. Outline: A USS Arleigh Burke and Taiwanese Perry-class frigate are doing a freedom of navigation exercise in the South China Sea, being shadowed by several PLAN ships a frigate and a missile boat. Both sides have aircraft that are in the area or on call. PLAN have a maritime patrol aircraft in the sky and aircraft that can scramble from several island bases. The US have a CV group within fighter coverage after several turns of action. The PLAN ships get cheeky and approach aggressively and turn on fire control radar to rattle the US/Taiwan side. The Taiwan ship responds in kind, and then the PLAN ships mistake it as an attack and open fire. Action: The PRC players got to dice for and activate aircraft sorties as well as dice for additional patrol boat reinforcements, and several "fishing boats" also joined the fray with ASMs. The US side could dice for CV CAP cover and airstrike response. Aftermath: Three PLAN ships sunk and 18 PRC aircraft downed before US CV fighter cover arrived. The Taiwanese frigate was damaged but under power at the end of the scenario. |
Uparmored | 12 Jan 2020 12:19 a.m. PST |
VERY interesting SBminisguy |
Tango01 | 12 Jan 2020 3:16 p.m. PST |
Indeed… many thanks!. Amicalement Armand |
Thresher01 | 13 Jan 2020 1:04 a.m. PST |
It's easy to design various scenarios in which one side can defeat another. The question posited was who would win a "war". I agree, in Chinese littoral waters, and/or "near Chinese waters bogus South China Sea claimed area", the Chinese clearly have a lot of cards stacked in their favor. Also interesting, and less frequently talked about, are the repercussions of such actions, and who wins after that, especially for the long game. |
arealdeadone | 13 Jan 2020 6:13 p.m. PST |
I read a RAND scenario with a limited skirmish between Chinese and US warships and the US warships lost for a number of reasons, though the primary one is lack of effective antishipping capability especially on LCS. But apparently the current Harpoons lack punch and range too compared to some Russian and Chinese designs. Even smaller Chinese corvettes pack a considerable anti-ship punch. The Chinese have created a full integrated defence network over SCS. Those islands are bolstered by land based aircraft, warships, land based sensor systems and long range antiship missiles.
The Taiwanese are effectively lost. Their airforce has lost the qualitative edge. They're ramping up F-CK-1 and F-16 upgrades and acquiring more but these jets are increasingly updated even with AESA and other upgrades and reliant on long airfields that would come under sustained cruise missile attack. The Mirage 2000-5s are expensive to operate and they are looking at retiring them. Their navy is largely obsolete (two of their 4 subs are WWII vintage and the other two from the 1970s). Their surface fleet has not had much in the way of upgrades since acquisition of Lafayette frigates and the rest mainly looks like the USN circa 1985 Knox class destroyers, Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates. Taiwan is ageing even quicker than China it's shrinking its military due to demographic changes. The big thing is too close economically to China. If push comes to shove, I don't know if they would resist China. ---------- The neighbourhood has also changed. Thailand is getting very close to the Chinese, the Philippines are edging towards China and Malaysia has become ever more neutral (and in any case their military is struggling with more and more cutbacks). This means less friendly bases for US to operate from and also potentially leaking of information regarding US dispositions to the Chinese. I also think even Australia would struggle to join the US in any coalition. PRC is Australia's largest trading partner and the Chinese have infiltrated politics, universities and other institutions here in a major way (look up Sam Dastyari and Gladys Liu). |
SBminisguy | 14 Jan 2020 9:54 a.m. PST |
Also interesting, and less frequently talked about, are the repercussions of such actions, and who wins after that, especially for the long game. Indeed. Any shooting match will be accompanied by a lot of other unpleasantry. 1. Expect both sides to engage in a destructive cyber and economic war. *Given the more "open" nature of the US network it may suffer more, but China would also certainly see major disruptions. *As a net goods exporter for currency China's economy is particularly vulnerable to trade disruptions, and since it also operates on JIT manufacturing any serious disruption will lead to collapse of its manufacturing sector. China is also a net food importer, so that will also have an impact. *China will no doubt take actions to crash the Stock Market, dump US Treasury notes, do currency manipulation, etc. So that will hurt, but the US has a more balanced economy and can recover relatively quickly compared to China. And China also has trillions in assets that would be disrupted. This article points out that China, for all its large land mass, is basically a coastal maritime economy with a single coastline. This makes it vulnerable to a naval blockade strategy similar to what the US followed to strangle the Japanese economy and industrial base during WW2. link |
SBminisguy | 14 Jan 2020 10:00 a.m. PST |
I read a RAND scenario with a limited skirmish between Chinese and US warships and the US warships lost for a number of reasons, though the primary one is lack of effective antishipping capability especially on LCS. But apparently the current Harpoons lack punch and range too compared to some Russian and Chinese designs. Even smaller Chinese corvettes pack a considerable anti-ship punch. The Harpoon puts a 500lb warhead into a target at almost 600mph from 150nm away…nothing to sneeze at given modern ships only armor critical systems. Been a awhile, but in 1988 when Iran attacked the USN, just two Harpoons left an Iranian British-made Vosper Mark V class frigate a burning wreck, finished off by additional weapons fire. I really really hope we don't have to experience another rising would-be imperial power in the East Pacific that decides to use force to create it's own Co-Prosperity Sphere… |
arealdeadone | 14 Jan 2020 3:15 p.m. PST |
I really really hope we don't have to experience another rising would-be imperial power in the East Pacific that decides to use force to create it's own Co-Prosperity Sphere… The PRC is definitely creating a "Co-Prosperity Sphere." However unlike the blunt force of the western colonial powers or Japan or modern Russia, the Chinese method of expansion is more insidious. The Chinese model is massive infiltration of government, media, universities, business and expatriate Chinese communities, and creation of economic dependencies upon China through investment and loans . Where force is necessary they utilise typical Chinese Communist insurgency tactics – usage of fishing boats and coast guard vessels to intimidate and push out competitors whilst the PLA sits in the shadows. The Chinese most effective offensive force is the United Front Work Department which oversees and coordinates most infiltration operations. Check out a book by Australian Professor Clive Hamilton called Silent Invasion which details impact of Communist Chinese infiltration in Australia. |
arealdeadone | 14 Jan 2020 3:15 p.m. PST |
I really really hope we don't have to experience another rising would-be imperial power in the East Pacific that decides to use force to create it's own Co-Prosperity Sphere… The PRC is definitely creating a "Co-Prosperity Sphere." However unlike the blunt force of the western colonial powers or Japan or modern Russia, the Chinese method of expansion is more insidious. The Chinese model is massive infiltration of government, media, universities, business and expatriate Chinese communities, and creation of economic dependencies upon China through investment and loans . Where force is necessary they utilise typical Chinese Communist insurgency tactics usage of fishing boats and coast guard vessels to intimidate and push out competitors whilst the PLA sits in the shadows. The Chinese most effective offensive force is the United Front Work Department which oversees and coordinates most infiltration operations. Check out a book by Australian Professor Clive Hamilton called Silent Invasion which details impact of Communist Chinese infiltration in Australia. |
|