• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

ATIS

Well-Known Member
The usual places...Afghanistan, Iraq.
Winning and killing are two different things (I know you know that). I was doing a lot of one day in and day out, still had no idea what winning was. Very frustrating. I’m sure we all have our stories we only tell folks we were there with, but after a time....you just got numb.

America has a “winning” gap, we forgot what it is and how much sacrifice it takes. My opinion of course.

ATIS
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Maybe you need to catch up on your reading. According to ADM Davidson (IndoPACOM), “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.” Davidson believes China is a “peer competitor” gaining on the United States not by matching its forces weapon by weapon but by building critical “asymmetrical capabilities,” including with anti-ship missiles and in submarine warfare. As he put it, bluntlily, in his report, “There is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.”
Way to take quotes out of context. Do you work for a major news agency?
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The usual places...Afghanistan, Iraq.
The last time we were doing anything resembling winning in Iraq was in 1991. As best I can tell, we've never reached that benchmark in Afghanistan. So, I guess my question for you is: WTF are you talking about?
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
Lih
The last time we were doing anything resembling winning in Iraq was in 1991. As best I can tell, we've never reached that benchmark in Afghanistan. So, I guess my question for you is: WTF are you talking about?
I don’t know what your metric for “winning” is in this conversation, but chill out dude - it was a joke.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Lih

I don’t know what your metric for “winning” is in this conversation, but chill out dude - it was a joke.
Just keepin’ it real around here, G. Between you, Randy and Chuck’s endless stream of harebrained ideas, nothing would surprise me anymore. 😉
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
Who is this peer adversary? What country can come close to our industrial output for ships and aircraft?

This 'near peer' boogeyman doesn't exist. Our Navy far exceeds the tonnage and capability of the next guy. Whatever they do have, they struggle to maintain even a small fraction operationally ready. That is why the bad guys are trying to come up with cheap ways to neutralize our ships with coastal defense options like drone swarms. They know that they cannot win a blue water conflict.

While I appreciate that we have to innovate to keep and improve the capability gap, the idea that someone can outproduce the US if a major naval conflict broke out in the near future is greatly exaggerated.
China is about on par with us for major combatant surface shipbuilding. They obviously fall well short on carrier capability and capacity, but are definitely starting to come up to pace with us there as well. They’re also the #1 shipbuilder in the world for commercial shipping.

I’d guess their sub force is a bit lacking comparatively in quality, though they certainly have a shitload of quantity. Same for aviation (eg absurdly old bombers), but they are well ahead of us in anti ship missiles (making said absurdly old bombers relevant), and theater range ballistic missiles is something where we simply don’t play yet.

There are definitely folks wearing three or four stars on active duty calling China either a peer or near peer depending on context. It’s not just random dudes on blogs.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
What country can come close to our industrial output for ships and aircraft?
You should look at some of the open source info on how quickly the PLAN is churning out surface combatants. They can make a Luyang III in about half the time as we can make a DDG. Likewise, even the most cursory review of the JSF program shouldn't be cause for celebration for our aircraft industrial output either.

China is rapidly catching up, and has already surpassed us in some areas of military platform production. People should be clear-eyed about that.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
No, but if you would like to provide some context I welcome it.
I mean, the interview is public and you mashed together partial quotes from answers to 3 different questions.

Also, anytime an GO/FO speaks to Congress about world threats there is going to be a certain level of "this is why you need to give me more toys" salesmanship.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
We enjoy maritime superiority over any other nation, to include complete dominance in air and undersea combat. This is an indisputable fact.

Yes, China is able to churn out large numbers of ships, missiles, and aircraft that are outmatched by the weapons we employ. They are also unable to invest the resources to keep all of those machines operational to the level we can.

The U.S. has the infrastructure to ramp up production when we need it.

Military leadership losing its mind because Russia deployed an (that's one) SSGN outside of its local waterspace for the first time in 30 years and the Chinese *might* be able to figure out how to operate an aircraft carrier in the next decade. Let's be clear eyed about that.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
I mean, the interview is public and you mashed together partial quotes from answers to 3 different questions.

Also, anytime an GO/FO speaks to Congress about world threats there is going to be a certain level of "this is why you need to give me more toys" salesmanship.
Rarely does someone need to post entire papers or interviews to pick out the critical points. As for the other part of your statement, fair enough, but it still doesn’t imply anything different from the initial point - China is a dangerous near peer adversary.
 
Top