• 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?

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
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.
The context absolutely does make a difference. You snipped a quote out of an answer where the Admiral is speaking about the difficulty of establishing a base of operations in the South China Sea. That doesn't make China a near peer competitor by any stretch.

Do you really think either of these nations are capable of waging a successful offensive campaign against the U.S. in armed conflict? Because they would need to be able to do just that to be 'near peer.' What you are calling 'near peer' is merely the fact that they are now somewhat capable of defending themselves in their own backyards, aided by the logistic challenges of being thousands of miles away from us.

Is the capability gap narrowing? Yes, it is, and we should continue to work to minimize that as much as possible. But it is still a capability gap by a significant margin. Any discussion of China or Russia being a near peer competitor from a military standpoint is exaggerated, and it's usually done to solicit more funding.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
The context absolutely does make a difference. You snipped a quote out of an answer where the Admiral is speaking about the difficulty of establishing a base of operations in the South China Sea. That doesn't make China a near peer competitor by any stretch.

Do you really think either of these nations are capable of waging a successful offensive campaign against the U.S. in armed conflict? Because they would need to be able to do just that to be 'near peer.' What you are calling 'near peer' is merely the fact that they are now somewhat capable of defending themselves in their own backyards, aided by the logistic challenges of being thousands of miles away from us.
Do you have any idea what context means? You may not like my opinion, the Admiral did say what I wrote.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
The context absolutely does make a difference. You snipped a quote out of an answer where the Admiral is speaking about the difficulty of establishing a base of operations in the South China Sea. That doesn't make China a near peer competitor by any stretch.

Do you really think either of these nations are capable of waging a successful offensive campaign against the U.S. in armed conflict? Because they would need to be able to do just that to be 'near peer.' What you are calling 'near peer' is merely the fact that they are now somewhat capable of defending themselves in their own backyards.
Dude. Again, this goes beyond random bloggers. The term “near peer” is in POTUS, SECDEF, and JCS and level document terminology.

You can take whatever interpretation on the term you want, but that is now what they are referred to as in national and department level policy documents.
 
Last edited:

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
They are also unable to invest the resources to keep all of those machines operational to the level we can.
Sure about that? If it's one thing China is not lacking, it's resources. Do they have anything like our world-wide logistics system? No, not yet, but they're certainly working on that too.

U.S. naval shipyard capacity is not in good shape. We can't even maintain our own fleet, let alone rapidly ramp up production to crank out hulls in wartime.

I'm not someone who sees a bogeyman in China, but you seem to seriously underestimate their capacity in several areas, while overestimating our own. Food for thought.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Dude. Again, this goes beyond random bloggers....You can take whatever interpretation on the term you want, but that is now what they are referred to as in national and department level policy documents.
Speaking of which, Cdr Salamander has done more to water down, pervert, and distort intelligent naval discourse than just about anyone else, ever.
 

UInavy

Registered User
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Speaking of which, Cdr Salamander has done more to water down, pervert, and distort intelligent naval discourse than just about anyone else, ever.
Jerry Hendrix gives him a run for his money. At least CDR Salamander and his merry band seem to operate on a closed loop over at his blog for the most part. His USNI blog posts are not generally solid, well-researched work and seem to be received as such. Hendrix, on the other hand, gets quite a bit of national exposure through his published works and is arguably less informed than CDR Salamander. I'm afraid that folks may actually start to take Hendrix seriously.

That said, I'm glad to see what seems to be more community-respected folks writing and publishing. Might as well make a difference now while you're active and your credibility is recent and relevant.

A few of my recent favorites:
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/12/18/gray-ghosts-past-as-preview-for-aircraft-carrier-raid-operations
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2019/01/03/the-navys-kessel-run
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/11/19/in-five-minutes-be-tactical-and-victorious-or-die
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/11/08/ship-to-shore
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/rethink-‘j’-jpme

Disagree with this one, but well-written and gutsy to put it out there:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/navy-information-warfare-needs-more-resources—and-command-sea
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
Do you really think either of these nations are capable of waging a successful offensive campaign against the U.S. in armed conflict?
Absolutely, they can. War is not scheduled in advance on a fair playing field. The enemy votes, and surprise is the timeless factor in war that makes anything possible.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Do you have any idea what context means? You may not like my opinion, the Admiral did say what I wrote.
He said those things in response to questions on topics that were separate from the one that you were using them to support.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Dude. Again, this goes beyond random bloggers. The term “near peer” is in POTUS, SECDEF, and JCS and level document terminology.

You can take whatever interpretation on the term you want, but that is now what they are referred to as in national and department level policy documents.
They can use the terminology all they want; the people you point to are not above political pandering for more funding to buy cool toys.

The great thing about adding the word 'near' to 'peer' is that you don't have to define exactly how near they are. There are more than a few tactical publications, signed by Admirals, that don't consider these nations' assets to be 'peer' or 'near peer.'

We want a world where we can impose our political, military, and economic will uncontested. We had a good 20 year run where that pretty much happened, and now China and Russia are able to exert more influence in their geographic regions. That doesn't make them peers, it just means they're more than what they were. But we'll call them peers and make it sound like they're fixing to invade us any minute if it means it approves the next [insert major military program that needs funding].

The bottom line is that saying someone is a peer doesn't make it true. We're now playing the same game we played in the 60s-80s with the Cold War -- the USSR was a 'near peer,' until 1991 when we all found out it wasn't even close.

Absolutely, they can. War is not scheduled in advance on a fair playing field. The enemy votes, and surprise is the timeless factor in war that makes anything possible.
Nice cliches. You really think that China or Russia is capable of launching a mainland invasion of the U.S. at any moment now?

Sure about that? If it's one thing China is not lacking, it's resources. Do they have anything like our world-wide logistics system? No, not yet, but they're certainly working on that too.

U.S. naval shipyard capacity is not in good shape. We can't even maintain our own fleet, let alone rapidly ramp up production to crank out hulls in wartime.

I'm not someone who sees a bogeyman in China, but you seem to seriously underestimate their capacity in several areas, while overestimating our own. Food for thought.
I don't think I'm underestimating anything. I acknowledge that China has built a relatively formidable brown water Navy. Unfortunately, China's 'brown water' contains the most traveled shipping lanes in the world and that conflicts with our economic interests, and that sucks. But the fact remains that they're a brown water Navy.

I'm also not underestimating that setting up a base of operations near China in any future conflict would be nearly impossible, simply because of geographic constraints. But that has a lot more to do with the shape of the Earth than it does with the state of China's military.

However, I wouldn't go so far to call China a peer. They have enough of a military and production to make armed conflict with them on their own territory somewhere between undesirable and hard to win, but they don't have the ability to exert their influence globally. When China starts conducting routine ISR missions in the Gulf of California with a CSG sitting 50 miles from LA while Russia routinely deploys multiple SSNs/SSGNs to the Gulf of Mexico and has a Carrier sitting 50 miles off of DC, I'll start worrying about these countries being 'near peer.'
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
He said those things in response to questions on topics that were separate from the one that you were using them to support.
No, no I did not. We are discussing Chinese naval capability and the ability of the US Navy to engage and win against a near-peer enemy. That is precisely what the admiral was talking/writing about.
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
You really think that China or Russia is capable of launching a mainland invasion of the U.S. at any moment now?
A) I didn’t say that.
B) Do I believe China and Russia each have the capability (across the DIMEFIL spectrum) to take unilateral actions toward securing their national interests globally and trying to regain great power status, even if it could result in conflict with the United States and our allies? Yes. Is “launching a mainland invasion of the U.S. at any moment” one of their national interests? Almost certainly not.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I don't think I'm underestimating anything.
Yes, I'm fairly clear on this point.
They have enough of a military and production to make armed conflict with them on their own territory somewhere between undesirable and hard to win, but they don't have the ability to exert their influence globally.
You seem to think that being able to threaten the US along our own shoreline is necessary to declare China as a peer. That's a strange perspective not shared by many professionals who work this problem. You can't simply say, "Well, the Admirals all want more funding," then proceed to casually dismiss anything they say that doesn't align with your opinion.

There are plenty of places that China can effectively threaten US interests with their current force structure. Anyone who has studied the various CONOPS in 7th fleet would find serious fault with your dismissive attitude toward the PLAN. Maybe you're getting lost in your own semantics, but your definition and views are out of sync with CNO, CPF, C7F and everyone on down with any stake.
 
Last edited:

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
How many HiMARS launches does it take to decertify the flight deck?
Good question. Here is a link to a report detailing the operation including use of the blast pad to protect the deck. In this instance, flight operations were resumed within 30 minutes. http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2018/jul-aug/articles/18-4_July-Aug_12_Ropelewski.pdf

In regards to naval gunfire support, the battleships are retired, the Zumwalt class has not materialized as expected - will be interesting to see if the Navy makes another attempt at a 155mm cannon system or sticks with the 5" gun and missiles.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
They can use the terminology all they want; the people you point to are not above political pandering for more funding to buy cool toys.

The great thing about adding the word 'near' to 'peer' is that you don't have to define exactly how near they are. There are more than a few tactical publications, signed by Admirals, that don't consider these nations' assets to be 'peer' or 'near peer.'

We want a world where we can impose our political, military, and economic will uncontested. We had a good 20 year run where that pretty much happened, and now China and Russia are able to exert more influence in their geographic regions. That doesn't make them peers, it just means they're more than what they were. But we'll call them peers and make it sound like they're fixing to invade us any minute if it means it approves the next [insert major military program that needs funding].

The bottom line is that saying someone is a peer doesn't make it true. We're now playing the same game we played in the 60s-80s with the Cold War -- the USSR was a 'near peer,' until 1991 when we all found out it wasn't even close.

Nice cliches. You really think that China or Russia is capable of launching a mainland invasion of the U.S. at any moment now?


I don't think I'm underestimating anything. I acknowledge that China has built a relatively formidable brown water Navy. Unfortunately, China's 'brown water' contains the most traveled shipping lanes in the world and that conflicts with our economic interests, and that sucks. But the fact remains that they're a brown water Navy.

I'm also not underestimating that setting up a base of operations near China in any future conflict would be nearly impossible, simply because of geographic constraints. But that has a lot more to do with the shape of the Earth than it does with the state of China's military.

However, I wouldn't go so far to call China a peer. They have enough of a military and production to make armed conflict with them on their own territory somewhere between undesirable and hard to win, but they don't have the ability to exert their influence globally. When China starts conducting routine ISR missions in the Gulf of California with a CSG sitting 50 miles from LA while Russia routinely deploys multiple SSNs/SSGNs to the Gulf of Mexico and has a Carrier sitting 50 miles off of DC, I'll start worrying about these countries being 'near peer.'
Either you’re referencing outdated pubs, or maybe the Sub community doesn’t have the same level of concern the Surface and Air communities do.

And sure, their capabilities need to be considered holistically, but you are definitely severely underestimating PLAN Surface force capabilities.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You really think that China or Russia is capable of launching a mainland invasion of the U.S. at any moment now?
No, but they are the only two countries that are an existential threat to the United States. They both also have a formidable, and in China's case a rapidly expanding, arsenal that we would likely have considerable difficulty in grappling with in a war.

I acknowledge that China has built a relatively formidable brown water Navy....But the fact remains that they're a brown water Navy.
You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inigo_Montoya.png
 
Top