98cae9 No.189904[Last 50 Posts]
Thread on China's massive armaments buildup and similar developments in the US and other countries
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98cae9 No.189905
According to the US navy's FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan, the US builds on average two nuclear attack submarines per year. Still, US total nuclear attack submarine inventory will decrease to 42 by FY2027, due to the looming mass retirement of old Cold War-era hulls. [1 p13]
An unclassified report by ONI [2] estimates that China today has 6 nuclear and 55 conventional attack submarines. The report estimates that China will add another 5 nuclear attack subs over the next 10 years. However, the report says ”Current expansion at submarine production yards could allow higher future production numbers.” which implies the 1/2 per year estimate is just an extrapolation of historical trends.
Bohai shipyard at Huludao (40°43'02.47"N, 121°01'20.57"E) builds nuclear submarines for the Chinese navy. They finished a very large assembly shed recently, and is building yet another shed. Judging from size and layout of launching rails, the first shed has twelve construction slots, and the second has eight. This brings total assembly slots up to twenty-one. A nuclear submarine takes rougly two years to assemble from modules. This suggests a theoretical production capacity of roughly ten and a half per year.
Imagery shows that the new assembly shed at Bohai is already in use. [3]
While some construction will probably be nuclear ballistic missile submarines, China only needs 8 more to have 14 [2], which is the same number that the US has today [1 p13] and should be a sufficient number for nuclear deterrent. The vast majority of new construction will then certainly be nuclear attack submarines. If this continues, the US navy might be outnumbered undersea by ~2030 already.
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5777236/PB20-30-Year-Shipbuilding-Plan-Final.pdf
[2] https://fas.org/irp/agency/oni/plan-trends.pdf
[3] http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Navy-Submarine=Construction-Bohai.html
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
088301 No.189911
Unfortunately, I don't think the Chinese like us enough to destroy the US military and solve our problems.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98cae9 No.189912
The U.S. Department of Defense has recently formulated a new shipbuilding plan called ”Battle Force 2045”. Notable aspects of the plan:
* Increase navy ship count by 66% from 301 to 500 ships, mostly smaller vessels
* Increase nuclear attack submarine production by 50% from 2 per year to 3 per year
* Build up to 6 light aircraft carriers to supplement nuclear aircraft carriers
* Naval buildup would be partially funded by cutting from the Army and Air Force
Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper particularly emphasized nuclear attack submarines.
> First, he said, the fleet would have a larger and more capable attack submarine fleet of 70 to 80 SSNs. “If we do nothing else, the Navy must begin building three Virginia-class submarines a year as soon as possible,” he said in the event during his opening remarks. “If we do nothing else, we should invest in attack submarines,” he repeated later during a question-and-answer session. Esper also called for refueling a total of seven Los Angeles-class SSNs, compared to the five or six the Navy had previously discussed, and invest heavily in the SSN(X) future submarine program. ”
https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/secdef-esper-calls-for-500-ship-fleet-by-2045-with-3-ssns-a-year-and-light-carriers-supplementing-cvns
Since the Trump admin is about to get thrown out in January, they can't execute the plan or bargain with Congress to fund it. We'll see what the new Biden admin and Congress will do.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
088301 No.189914
>>189912
>Since the Trump admin is about to get thrown out in January, they can't execute the plan or bargain with Congress to fund it.
Good.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
088301 No.189915
The military threads always reveal the obscene depths of the conservative right's negrophilia. Should be required reading for any nationalist or wannabe nationalist who stumbles in.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98cae9 No.189917
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
088301 No.189926
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92316a No.189963
>>189904
Not a thread. No content. Go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of shit spewing chink propaganda.
For those of you still terrified of Big Bad China coming for the US, even if they make everything in their military plan, they still won’t commission more warship tonnage than the USN from now to 2025.
US warships to be commissioned by 2025:
3x Ford class, 300,000t
3x America class, 134,913t
3x Zumwalt class, 45,000t
14x Burke class, 137,200t
10x Freedom and 10x Independence class, 66,040t
16x Virginia class, 126,400t
3x San Antonio class, 75,900t
And those are just the commissioned major combatants, not including the MSC or support hulls. A total of 885,453 tons of commissioned warship by 2025, all of which are either currently under construction or currently on order. For reference, this is roughly 3/4 of the entire current PLAN commissioned displacement.
PLAN new build ships by 2025:
1x Type 001A, 67,500t
1x Type 002, (no confirmed tonnage; ~80,000
12x 055, ~156,000t
23x 052D, 172,500t
1x 054A, 4,053t
24x 054B, 97,272t
2x 071, 50,000t
4x 072, 160,000t
For a grand total of about 787,325t, and that’s only if they are wildly successful and there are no issues with building the first in class ships of at least 5 brand new first-build designs in the next 9 years. Still almost 100,000t less than the rate at which the USN has been building and commissioning warships for years now. The USN has more supercarrier tonnage (1.1 million tons) commissioned and operational than the tonnage of the entire PLAN. As of May 2015:
Total commissioned tonnage for the USN: over 3,000,000 tons.
Total commissioned tonnage for the PLAN: 992,363 tons.
Carriers number/tonnage
USN: 10x, 1.1 million tons, Nimitz class
PLAN: 1x 67,500 tons, Liaoning
LPA/LHD/LSD numbers/tonnage
USN: 9x, 369,693 tons, 1 America and 8 Wasps
PLAN: 0x, 0 tons, nada
LPD/LSD numbers/tonnage
USN: 22x, 448,214 tons, 8 Whidbey Island, 4 Harpers Ferry, 1 Austin, 9 San Antonio
PLAN: 3x, 60,000 tons, Type 071 (Yuzhao)
LST number/tonnage
USN: 0x, 0 tons, nada
PLAN: 60x, 209,360 tons, various types from 800-7,000 tons
Since the decommissioning of the last Newport-class in 2002, the USN has not used LSTs. It still operates 32 LCUs (381t apiece) as well as the 35 US Army operated LCUs (1,102t apiece), but because the USN has so many LHAs, LHDs, LPDs, and LSDs, LSTs are no longer needed to ferry LCUs to the combat area. Notice that this class of vessel, which the USN considers obsolete in modern amphibious warfare, comprises over 20% of the PLAN fleet. So, no. Even if they’re wildly successful (spoiler: they’re commies, so they won’t be), the Chinese are not even going to be gaining ground with the 2025 plan.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92316a No.189964
>>189963
China has a shit military (relative to NATO) and an economy entirely based on trade with NATO countries. The only threat the pose is economic. They’re actively looking for ways to collapse Western stock markets and delete wealth in retaliation for–or preemption of–NATO aggression in the South China Seas or North Korea. But it’s not just an intentional threat they pose. China is responsible for almost all of the world’s economic growth now. The West has been stagnant since 2008 and the entire world has been riding the coattails of China as it continues to build more and more production capacity, no matter what the cost. That cost has not been seen yet, but it will be realized. Soon. Chinese debt is out of control. Their economy is based on increasing demand in Western countries, but the amount of debt that we could accommodate peaked in 2008. We have no more demand, therefore China has no more growth. Ergo emerging markets have no one to sell more raw goods too. The Chinese have been in denial about this since the last crash and have simply increased borrowing to keep production and economic growth, but no one is buying more. The loans will never receive their projected cashflows and each year they add more and more. China is about to implode and the Communist Party will be overthrown by the People’s Liberation Army.
You only have to look to Japan to realize this. They had enormous growth from the end of WWII to the 1980s (thanks, billions of US tax dollars in reconstruction!). Finally, when they were the third largest economy in the world and everyone was predicting they’d be the biggest in the world by the year 2000, they imploded and have had stagnation ever since. What happened in the ’80s? Manufacturing moved to China. In the ’90s, GATT and other trade agreements helped move even more manufacturing to China than had ever moved to Japan (people hate Japanese cars for a reason–they killed American jobs). China has already hit its peak. It’s all Japan from here. Except this time it’s not happening to an ally. This time the overcapacity is many times greater. This time the whole world is overburdened with debt and has low growth. The Japanese had a growing world to sell to. The Chinese will not.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6d22ca No.190118
Did you people miss the fact that both US and Russia are developing short-mid range thermonuclear warheads? I swear I never see anyone talk about it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92316a No.190120
>>190118
It’s just not relevant. Nukes won’t be used in any war except the last one, so it’s irrelevant what kinds are being developed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c94b26 No.190145
>>189963
>>189963
> Not a thread. No content.
???
> US will build more tonnage 2021-2025
(1) By your own numbers: If today the US has 3,000,000 tons and CN has 992,363 tons, then that is a ratio of about 3:1. By 2025 the US would have 3,885,453 tons and CN have 1,779,688 tons, a ratio of about 2.2:1. So China's relative tonnage is increasing.
(2) I think one needs to look beyond just 2025, and look at 10-20 years.
China's economy is predicted to grow much faster than the US [1]. China's military budget is 1.9% of GDP [2 p11], compared to 3.4% of GDP of the US [2 p10], so China has room to increase military spending even without economic growth. China increased their military budget by 6.6% in 2020 [3] despite the covid crash, which shows a deep political commitment to expand the military.
China is laying the groundwork to build at a very fast rate. Bohai shipyard was mentioned in the previous post. They will have two shipyards building aircraft carriers (DSIC in Dalian, which built Shandong, and Jiangnan in Shanghai, which is building the new 003 carrier). The US has only one shipyard that builds carriers (HII).
(3) The US navy won't see much net growth because most new construction is just to replace old hulls. New CVN/LHD/LHA/LPD are built to replace existing hulls on a roughly one-to-one basis. This can be seen in the FY2020 30 year plan. Carrier numbers will not increase and actually decrease slightly from FY2025 onward. Amphibious warfare ships will remain flat. This too can be seen in the FY2020 30 year plan. Large surface combatants will increase in number, although not by as much as there will be new construction. The 22 Ticonderogas are reaching 40 years and have to be retired soon. By 2030, Burkes will start reaching 40 years too. Nuclear attack submarines will actually decrease in number until FY2027. By contrast, the Chinese navy builds many more ships than they retire, and the ships that they do retire are so low-tech and obsolete as to be practically irrelevant anyway (for example the type 051 destroyers).
(4) Technological development means the utility of surface warships, particularly monolithic behemoths like aircraft carriers, will be low for the purposes of naval warfare between great powers.
(i) Reusable orbital launch vehicles will dramatically lower the cost of launching spacecraft. This means megaconstellations are economically feasible. Such systems are already being developed, for example SpaceX's Starlink communications system and DARPA's Blackjack demonstrators.
It also means low-orbit spacecraft are more economically feasible because they can be cheaply refuelled to extend their lifespan, or they can land and be relaunched. Surely, maritime reconnaissance spacecraft using synthetic aperture radar will become abundant and coverage will be excellent and surface warships can be easily targeted. Carrier-launched aircraft will not be needed for reconnaissance.
(ii) Autonomous submarines and prepositioned hydrophones can guard likely thoroughfares and use sonar to listen for ships. The listeners can then transmit this data via satellites or underwater cables. Using triangulation, the data from several listeners can be used to locate a target. China is for example building the HSU-001.
(iii) Hypersonic anti-ship missiles. China already has ballistic anti-ship missiles (DF-21D, DF-26). China tested such missiles against a moving ship in the South China Sea in 2020 [4]. Hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles are even better because they have more maneuverability. The ability to execute large course corrections could increase effective range to near trans-oceanic ranges. They will also be very hard to hit. Combat air patrol will be useless, and Aegis is probably not very reliable against hypersonic maneuvering targets. Only a few missiles will be necessary for a 95% probability of hit. And even if they cost $40m each, you could still buy 1,000 such missiles for the same price as a carrier strike group*.
(iv) Stealth bombers as anti-ship missile carriers. They can move to a firing position faster than carrier-launched aircraft which have to travel at ship speed until they are within F/A-18/F-35 combat range of the target. The US already has B-2 and is developing B-21. China is developing the H-20.
Aircraft carriers abilities in terms of reconnaissance and naval strike will no longer be unique, and they are an extremely large investmenet concentrated into a single hull. So, they will probably no longer be a cost-efficient weapons system for great power naval warfare, though they will still be useful against lesser powers for force projection on land.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c94b26 No.190146
>>190145
cont.
It seems Mark Esper and his team came to similar conclusions. Esper's ”Battle Force 2045”:
* do not increase supercarrier number, instead possibly decrease it
* get cheaper, smaller, less capable carriers
* more nuclear attack submarines
* unmanned submarines
* manned and optionally manned surface ships
While reduced manning is useful for lower operating costs, wanting fully unmanned or optionally manned surface ships is in line with a recognition that surface ships would suffer extreme attrition in a naval war against China. ”Esper called for between 140 and 240 unmanned and optionally manned ships on the surface and under the sea, conducting missions ranging from laying mines, conducting missile strikes, resupplying manned ships, surveillance, serving as decoys and more. ” [5].
*Estimate for the cost of buying a carrier strike group:
1x CVN = $13bn
5x DDG = $9bn
2x SSN = $7bn
1x AOE = $1bn
50x F-35 = $5bn
5x E-2 = $1bn
10x MQ-25 = $2bn
munitions = $3bn
total = $41bn
[1] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/CHN/USA
[2] https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932019%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP.pdf
[3] https://apnews.com/article/60ef9011ba4e9b619852313621e5bb45
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/chinas-military-expansion-will-test-the-biden-administration/2020/12/03/9f05e92a-35a7-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html
[5] https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/secdef-esper-calls-for-500-ship-fleet-by-2045-with-3-ssns-a-year-and-light-carriers-supplementing-cvns
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8f80db No.190455
>>190145
>>189963
>>190146
All them weapon and all "manned" by wymin, niggers and trannies with the highest IQ aboard being diversity hire chinks. Give it another two decades.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b5e0ca No.191007
>>190145
> 2021-2025
I think he meant 2015-2025?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b5e0ca No.191008
>>190145
China has supposedly already an operational missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle. Don't know though if it has a seeker that can target ships or if it has been tested against a moving target.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d266db No.201046
>>189964
1. China's exports have been constantly increasing and are at record highs in 2020.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports
2. Why couldn't China just sell to itself?
3. Japan's stagnation was probably because of the Plaza Accord of 1985, when USA forced Japan to appreciate the Yen relative to the USD. Trump tried Plaza Accord 2.0 with China and wanted them to appreciate the Yuan relative to the USD. However after months of pretending to agree to stall for time, just before signing, Liu He told Trump to go f himself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
289c62 No.201172
>>189964
>That cost has not been seen yet,
Just the environmental damage is terrifying to contemplate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
289c62 No.201173
>>190120
>It’s just not relevant. Nukes won’t be used in any war except the last one, so it’s irrelevant what kinds are being developed.
OH NOEZ, THE JEW ESS AY ISN'T MAKING ENOUGH NUCLEAR SUBS TO UTTERLY DESTROY ALL LIFE ON EARTH! WOE!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
11dd9b No.201179
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>201046
>3. Japan's stagnation was probably because of the Plaza Accord of 1985, when USA forced Japan to appreciate the Yen relative to the USD. Trump tried Plaza Accord 2.0 with China and wanted them to appreciate the Yuan relative to the USD. However after months of pretending to agree to stall for time, just before signing, Liu He told Trump to go f himself.
Based.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4238b3 No.201180
>>189964
China is not stagnating though. Their master-stroke has been the "belt and road" initiative. Whereas during colonial times the West came to third-world countries and demanded that they give us their resources (including literal slaves) on pain of death, China have come with a deal; give us your natural resources and we will employ you, educate you and improve your nation's infrastructure.
The roots of our fuck-up lie way back in the colonial era when we very ruthlessly but ineptly attempted to divide up the world. Hence all of the terrorism Western armies and intelligence services are occupied with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
289c62 No.201182
>>201179
Excellent film and post..but this post goes with it and is well worth reading..
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
289c62 No.201183
>>201180
This is excellent; Col Fletcher Prouty had a lot to say about this. It's one of the foibles of the Western World. Chinese trading ships show up on the African coast; it's party time. Portugese French British ships show up on the African coast; run for the hills they're going to murder us all.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
11dd9b No.201184
>>201183
With all due respect, the problem is we didn't kill enough niggers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c9e33c No.201209
why are they still making toys to pretend play war when they have anti gravitational devices?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
af5cab No.203418
Major Chinese warships currently in service or in advanced stages of construction
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
af5cab No.203420
>>203418
Chinese surface combatants thought to be on order or in early stages of construction. It represents an expansion of approximately 40% to 124 blue water surface combatants, since no are old enough to be retired anytime soon. For comparison, the US will have 107 Aegis ships and 10 frigates by 2030, according to the FY2020 30 year shipbuilding plan (it might also have 35 LCS, which are essentially glorified coast guard patrol ships)
https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/hints-of-chinese-naval-ambitions-in-the-2020s/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1e3065 No.203439
>>203418
And none of that is relevant, because a third of their entire PLAN is comprised of ships that all Western navies consider obsolete.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d8b244 No.203448
>>203439
I don't see how one third would be obsolete.
10 of the oldest large ships (6x 053H3, 2x 052, 2x 054) use the HHQ-7 missile, which is arguably obsolete and not so effective.
Of the large blue water surface combatants, about half (1x 051B, 2x 052B, 4x 956E, 30x 054A) use the Type 382 radar which is based on Soviet Fregat-M. It is mechanically scanned horizontally and electronically scanned vertically, similar to the SMART-L radar used on modern European warships. These ships use the HHQ-16 missile, which is based on the Soviet Buk missile and roughly similar to the Sea Sparrow. Two ships use the original Soviet S300F and Fregat-M (2x 051C)
The other half (25x 052D, 6x 052C, 8x 055) use the Type 346 radar, which is an active electronically scanned array radar similar to the AN/SPY-6 used on new Flight III Burke class destroyers. These ships use the HHQ-9 missile, which is similar to the SM-6.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d8b244 No.203452
>>203448
Chinese corvettes use the Type 364 radar and HHQ-10 missile, which, while not very capable, is only intended as a self defense weapon similar to RIM-116. These ships are intended to operate under friendly air cover near Chinese shores.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
16be87 No.203454
>>189904
Why would they bother? A bunch of cave dwelling Afghans with Cold War surplus has been wrecking America's shit since 2001.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1e3065 No.203478
>>203448
>I don't see how one third would be obsolete.
See: >>189963
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
67c217 No.203668
>>203478
>>189963
I assumed you meant the ships in the image. The image doesn't include LSTs, submarines or auxiliaries.
> one third is obsolete
> comprises over 20% of the PLAN fleet.
The Chinese navy has more than 530 ships. 60 is 11% of that.
> Notice that this class of vessel, which the USN considers obsolete in modern amphibious warfare
The USN plans to buy LSTs, although they now call them LAWs.
https://news.usni.org/2021/01/11/marines-navy-moving-quickly-on-light-amphib-anti-ship-missiles-to-create-more-warfighting-options
Also, as the comment noted, 35 light LSTs are operated by the US Army.
LSTs are not obsolete. Different craft have different advantages. Hovercraft have the advantage of being able to land almost anywhere. LPDs/LSDs have the advantage of high seaworthiness. LSTs have the advantage of being cheaper than hovercraft and putting fewer "eggs in one basket" than LPDs/LSDs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
650088 No.203971
>>189904
>any 2nd world nation can make tens of thousands of semi-submersible drones, slap a copper-tipped shape charge in the nose, and send a few hundred to zerg rush carriers
>costs a few $10,000 per drone
>can be deployed for months if they are loitering
>drones can be towed by ships thousands of miles away, closer to their targets
>drones can be set to drift on currents to get closer to their targets
>if the attacking nation is careful, no one can tell for sure who sent the drones
>can drag their communication antenna a few thousand feet behind them to prevent sigint from tracking or blocking signals
>being partially submerged offers protection from small arms fire and rockets
>can be prototyped via 3d printing to develop models with reduced radar signatures
>requires constant vigilance from crews and state of the art tech to detect, something that is not found in the diversity hires in the US Navy
>tl;dr: the age of navies for force projection is over
sources:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sinister-catch-exposes-chinas-underwater-spies-on-australias-doorstep/news-story/6e287a838871315584aaa57bbf443514
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51130644
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
babfd8 No.204519
>>203971
The Chinese drone seems to be an underwater glider; those can only travel slowly and are used for surveying.
A Nimitz carrier can travel at least 30kn. How would the drones catch up with it? It would only work if the carrier is heading straight towards them or very close by.
Of course, the drone could be a torpedo. The Mk 48 torpedo can supposedly travel 50km at 40kn; however, it costs about $4m. That doesn't seem very affordable. For comparison, the Pacific ocean is 165,250,000km^2.
It seems you're essentially describing a system of smart, self-deploying mines. While that definitely seems useful, I'd say a nation can't rely on such a tactic exclusively, since mines can be cleared by minesweepers eventually.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
25cf09 No.209871
SVqxWIZgPPl OGcjunToPXc AMJzuyfdCAiU bUazQxBf hsGM UCxWCt MyWIfaNa kgsc PsKntuEe LoimVjuO QtjlxzM wBHVmm
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
907c45 No.209958
VdtOCJdvGr MnOFvGuZkTT CpzXJZNll IOnYqTs eABNIQEhzU oCSQUUDv ptDysbQ emhS vJkqjEyn
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d4839b No.209996
JTvehfvdv KUOLSnPzIN BOuOTtzUff LZiBOzhM qIpzYUDOQ FlqXA TMxMbSvyi XQZyDiNbtL jmSgNDdeh kpMiyPHb PmWAhwDv LLMVK stxcGdst nMhlHdwHkO didgr XDXq sLAz ocQDbwd
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
38d829 No.211356
xMQURYkyPSgs hTCsyHQhyeOn YWpkoO VSyvNvcH rwGSYcgbQ DQDoFgn rHgGerJKtdX hKscdL oiZrRXPonp ZaWCzR oeoj
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b19d6b No.211382
TMVi KKh yVLkRt QWF ZJY CgzSXUh
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3fcc3c No.211388
yrZKGYiLqNMM wPxwkpbNQ OJammac KFmsoLwaOX gZrXEL MRoOsnGEaka xywnnmc dQPHEWw RfZwHh haiRBR KDGgOdBHucy fow prOvqwyAtifD lVnNAtSXwKt RWMaZBwCMHtJ omwELuqoA rZeUqgrXSnfy YDHYYYed EAaUTU VWWxrjwGo
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c99472 No.211402
GqeHsXemSq TrtcxL HCLMYqmTtULU nelqDJyTlhn lxTW
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dca9c0 No.211458
EjF sLNqFoza bUmYcEbTI GRjaYQ oPudZxUZXFx xUJKgkgwV fDViAmVtv TBNzsOlNKnP
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e16c4b No.211898
GzQYnAivCS plwn GJJjv aKUQNeZhbwkU dgB gNazcPtj XsnZG RjwxqdOtoVC gjgBk swuCBkq cgQlx PfwEWHtwzvWJ OQJTD gewiGpqERuyo DwSeq CEilevqYLKA DSsPyk
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fc627b No.212402
opPI IGwaW fQnjRAIM PhPtHIHPB kSKKKwb YUvDzS ZgN NlNUFx asRYWZed vwSOPYFfUd ElOJFXgg AsMC
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
95caec No.212569
YlyPSLgzrdq tBiQeYK DgrqXC WcEVOHXIb gsWAlXqcng IgMCYvn YJIqLEJDo uRHAW ghF EezaJzkKKG nHYpoeoGi pwg PJcnYV cLIFvmH rKqWK hKUatiDQjO
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b771ae No.212698
HreYswpEpVz gbnrBv GYwqYQPiy AFhvM yBKhs IRLFCClSV HKTvNPZOiQA mVsFH yDTpMeCwA vpnDyiTkWmZQ HzSwguLOOV
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
275e12 No.212744
ZNQKokT omQZxPFb NAi NJxi
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
45d4ef No.212752
gkjRWaYAN czWpL HzZbcw sFfzbYBGbDp mPZErBUhxE uFfEmGUdXDKl khBd zoGTzwHCJiGo jnGHMZMT htX bto CDFboBiXySmH dLjUEPRzQS ErgzIDxOiJr NMaO
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
198bbc No.213615
xOYlcbAr PpAeVWjohC zGm ccTaWofI DKSMbDqNzAS qcctfx qRTvUsPd
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a7b062 No.217469
I'd say that overall the US seems ill positioned to partake in an arms race with China.
1. China has higher economic growth
2. China spends 2% of their GDP on the military, while the US spends 3.4%, so China has more room to increase spending above economic growth
3. China has lower wages, which is important because personell costs are a large part of defense expenditures. Each year, the DoD spends $153bn on personell, which is 22% of the budget. The Department of Veterans Affairs also has a separate annual budget of $200bn. Lower wages also probably means that China can procure ships and other equipment for less money.
4. Pentagon procurement is severely flawed. Some examples of flawed procurement programs are Future Combat Systems, Ford, Zumwalt, Independence, Freedom, F-35, KC-46A, and the failure to replace the Ticonderogas. And it's not just a case of ”let's do procurement better from now on”. There are long term consequences that it will be very hard for the DoD to extricate itself from.
For example, look at the F-35 program that was supposed to replace the F-16. The DoD will buy ~2,500 up to 2044 and use them to ~2070. The idea to combine all types of aircraft into one program has created total vendor lock-in to Lockheed Martin, since they are now the only company with experience and expertise in developing modern fighters (F-35, F-22), which means the DoD has no leverage and is effectively held hostage to the contractor who can add delays and cost overruns at leisure. The program is also politically uncancellable since production is distributed to 45 states and 9 countries. As things stand, F-35 operations and sustainment costs are on track to eat a much larger chunk of the defense budget than it was supposed to, leaving less room for R&D or newer equipment for the next 50 years. For example, the cost per flying hour was supposed to be ~$25,000, not much more than the F-16. Yet apparently the cost per flying hour won't go below $34,000 anytime soon.
> “The department doesn’t see a path to get to $25,000 dollars per flying hour by FY25,” said Robert Daigle, the outgoing head of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing. “There are a fair number of studies going on right now that are going to provide some more information on that, but that’s a target and it’s not our projection for where we’re actually going to be.”
> Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle, who is stepping down later this month. (The two organizations did not provide an estimate for FY25, which is outside of the regular five-year budget cycle.)
> Either figure would be an improvement from the FY18 rate, in which one hour of flight time in the "A" model cost about $44,000. However, the oldest F-35s will begin to move into long-term depot maintenance in the mid 2020s, causing a moderate rise in price during the later portion of the decade.
> “After 2024, projections are that the cost per flight hour are going to flatten out and then increase a little bit because the planes are starting to age where you’re going to have to start bringing them back to the depot,” Daigle said.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/02/one-of-the-f-35s-cost-goals-may-be-unattainable/
Assuming a persistent high cost and 8,000 flying hours per airframe, the difference between $25,000/hr and $35,000/hr is $200bn, which is about 12% of program life cycle cost.
> The F-35’s total “life cycle” cost is estimated at $1.727 trillion in current dollars. Of that, $1.266 trillion is for operations and support
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-11/f-35-is-running-10-billion-short-through-2025-pentagon-finds
For comparison, China splits fighter development between Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group.
Another example is the shipbuilding industrial base. The SSN count is on track to drop from 53 today to 42 by 2029, and there isn't much that can be done about it because all shipyard capacity expansion will be taken up just to replace the Ohio SSBNs with the Columbias. For comparison, China is building an enourmous submarine factory at Huludao (see >>189905).
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/fy-2020-u-s-navy-30-year-shipbuilding-plan
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a7b062 No.217471
>>217469
It seems a fundamental problem of reforming procurement is that certain politicians have turned the Pentagon into their personal ATM for re-election campaign money, in that they launder donations through defense contractors. They will fight tooth and nail against any reform. Also, politicians resist any closures in their district. The DoD has been trying for years to retire the A-10 and JSTARS to save money, only to be forbidden by Congress. Maybe China has this problem too though, I don't know, though I'd assume if the CCP wants to divert public money, they just cook the books and don't bother laundering it through the military.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a7b062 No.217472
>>217469
When expanding naval shipbuilding, China has the advantage of a much larger civilian shipbuilding industry and metalworking industry in general on which they can draw.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
296ca4 No.217477
>>217468
>>217469
China also isnt sugar daddy to the world's biggest parasite: Israel. So their finances, national security, and cultural cohesion is not at risk
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4d7c59 No.217507
>>217477
lol yea cos it's the other way round, china is propped up by israel
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
20384f No.217511
itt: retarded zoomers and chinese jews.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
20384f No.217512
>>217507
except for you. you're alright.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4ed10e No.218226
>>217511
* Wages and prices are lower in China, which means China gets more ships and soldiers for the same expenditure.
* China's economy is growing faster than the US'. In 2019, China's economy grew 6% while the US' grew 2.1%.
* China's military expenditures are 2% of GDP, whereas US' military expenditures are 3.4% of GDP, which means China has more room to increase military spending above economic growth.
* Are Americans content with China catching up, or do they want do stay far ahead?
China raised their military budget by 6.6% even in the midst of the covid crash. This demonstrates an extreme political committment to increase the military budget.
> China will increase its defense spending by 6.6% in 2020, the lowest rate in years as it battles an economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus outbreak, the government said Friday.
https://apnews.com/article/60ef9011ba4e9b619852313621e5bb45
Meanwhile in the United States;
> “I suspect that, at best, the Pentagon’s budgets will start flattening out. There’s a reasonable prospect that they could actually decline significantly, depending on what happens” with the broader economy, Gen. Mark Milley said at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/12/02/milley-budget-reality-check-may-impact-foreign-exercises-basing-plans/
> “We’re going to deal with a much tighter budget going forward, more flat I think than rising, but within that I think we have to make judicious calls about what is worthwhile,” [Senate Armed Services Committee chairman] Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told reporters Wednesday.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/02/25/us-military-may-sidestep-budget-cuts-backed-by-progressives/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4ed10e No.218227
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4ed10e No.218228
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4ed10e No.218229
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ca73ee No.218236
Reminder that China hasn’t won a war in 400 years and this thread is literally just jewish fearmongering propaganda.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fcdfa0 No.232158
>>218236
why will that continue?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
