US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
66
Points
480
Weinie, I think you bring up a good point. And one that I've addressed in previous posts, without knowing the answer to.

It may very well go badly for China in the end. But the end of what?

With more shipyards, and those shipyards pumping out ships at a faster rate than American ones, and a government that does not need to debate or play politics with itself (as a democracy such as the US has to) - in addition to being able to engage the enemy closer to their own shores (which also have substantial fire support).... even if the fight does go badly for the Chinese, they will be able learn lessons, rebuild, and pose a similar problem shortly down the road again.


Short term, I agree. I think it would be China's loss in the end.

Long term, I see them learning from the lessons. Rebuilding at a frightening rate. And posing the same danger down the road, if not more capable than they are now.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
89
Points
630
Perhaps, or maybe the pundits, for lack of anything substantive to opine about, are filling the space.

I am pretty confident that the U.S. has a number of COA's to deal with China in the event of either limited or full on conflict, notwithstanding all the conjecture that has been posed. I am also pretty confident that the PRC knows this, and it may explain why they have been very aggressive in all arenas; diplomatic, economic, informational, regional, when it comes to China/US relations, but have only blustered when it comes to the military.

Several folks on this site have posited that it is only a matter of time before China and the US go at it. That may be true, but I still think it would go badly for the Chinese in the end.
I agree and think that it would go very badly for the Chinese as well. Everyone talks about China's A2AD capability and certainly that allows them to assert control over the SCS but those assets would be of very little value if things went kinetic. There value is more political than anything else.

China is pumping out a lot of ships, on average 6 to 7 major war vessels a year, 1 to 2 submarines a year and many other smaller coastal defence vessels.

The real question is what is the actual quality of these ships and does PLAN actual have the technical and institutional sophistication to use any of that shiny kit effectively?

China has almost no recent combat experience. In fact, the one war the PLA did fight, the Sino-Vietnamese War, they did very poorly despite having vastly superior forces in all aspects. There is something to be said about combat experience and having lots of it, which the Vietnamese certainly did.

I feel a fight against the US Military would have a worse outcome for the Chinese. They would be coming up against a Military force with vastly superior experience in combat and a seasoned warfighting culture.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
66
Points
480
As we all know, quantity has a quality all it's own. And being able to fight close to home, logistics, supporting fires, and supporting aircraft - are all in favour of the Chinese.

As for their A2AD caspabilities - those remain to be seen. Yes, it gives them some political power in regards to SCS matters. But if it also has the ability to rain down anti-ship ballistic missiles in the dozens, or hundreds - that is a kinetic danger that can't be underestimated at first. It would only take one or two of them to hit their targets, and they would most likely be at least mission-kills on the ships they hit.



Do the Americans have superior technology, a more seasoned warfighting culture, and vastly more experience conducting complex operations? Absolutely, they are a well oiled machine.

But the Chinese have the benefit of focusing their efforts on a relatively small geographical area. Whereas the US still insists on having forces all over the place, and hasn't really 'prepared' their fleet for such an undertaking in terms of readiness. (Technology, sure. But readiness? Iffy)

I.e., The US insists on using it's supercarriers far more often than they need to be used, and that has led to a massive backlog in carrier maintainence, with a majority of the Nimitz class fleet currently down & in various states of repair/maintenance.
 
Top