Who Rules the Waves? U.S. and Chinese Fleets, by Tonnage

[Foinikas]

FAILED MISERABLY IN KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA .
and likely in many many other countries and regions, such as in the Red Sea where a USA carrier was clobbered by a DIY home made Houthi missile.

And as demonstrated so clearly in KSA the Aegis and Patriot systems defending Saudi a joke as the Aegis and Patriot cannot even detect a few sub Mach cruise missiles not to talk of taking them down. Even to now, no one sure where those came from and who flown them. Despite overlapping coverage of those Patriot and Aegis systems.

The American systems dunno where the slow poke missiles came from and if missiles did not go off with bangs leaving smoke and fire, might not even have existed at all

New sales pitch? US makes the world’s ‘finest’ anti-air systems, but sometimes they just don’t work, Pompeo explains
Saudi air defenses like Patriot & Aegis don’t match their advertised properties, unfit for real combat – Russian Army (MAP)

This claim has been debated to pieces in the old forum. You guys have to move on. @LeGenD had explained everything in detail why the Iranian and Houthi missiles and loitering munitions managed to hit some of the targets. And Patriot as well as Aegis were pretty darn solid. There were other problems,such as Arab forces not being well-trained or vigilant enough,Iran attacking from the East(although denying attacking)and exaggeration of hit reports,while ignoring how many threats the AA systems had already eliminated.

 

[LeGenD]

FAILED MISERABLY IN KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA .
and likely in many many other countries and regions, such as in the Red Sea where a USA carrier was clobbered by a DIY home made Houthi missile.

After five years, hundreds of long- and short-range missiles fired, and more than 160 missile-defense intercepts, it’s time to take stock.​

Lessons from Yemen’s Missile War

After five years, hundreds of long- and short-range missiles fired, and more than 160 missile-defense intercepts, it’s time to take stock.

www.defenseone.com

This data is incomplete.

Saudi were learning from these attacks and were able to shot down many drones and missiles after the attack on that oil refinery.

Please keep in mind that Saudi defenses have gaps and their patriot systems are less capable than those given to Ukraine. Saudi need to plug these gaps.

You mentioned AEGIS defense system. There is literally no defense system on the planet that match sophistication and results of this system. Twitter is blocked in Pakistan unfortunately, I would have shown you relevant statistics and infographics.

Saudi do not have AEGIS defense system by the way.

Let's talk about Chinese defense systems. What are the results, if any.

Do not make fun of others, mate. Not good.

 

[Beijingwalker]

Let's talk about Chinese defense systems. What are the results, if any.

No results, cause no one attacks us, China army doesn't have the luxury of attacking and being attacked around the world like US army.

 

[Foinikas]

China army doesn't have the luxury of attacking and being attacked around the world like US army.

Doesn't have the luxury? I thought you were one of the world's top economies...

Where have Chinese AA systems though been involved? Has any country used them in a conflict the last 30 years? Maybe in the Kargil War?

 

[Beijingwalker]

Doesn't have the luxury? I thought you were one of the world's top economies...

Where have Chinese AA systems though been involved? Has any country used them in a conflict the last 30 years? Maybe in the Kargil War?

What AA? what is Kargil? what are you talking about?

 

[DF-41]

No results, cause no one attacks us, China army doesn't have the luxury of attacking and being attacked around the world like US army.

China do not go about stirring shit and formenting troubles.
That is something only USA is doing while pretending to be policeman , when in fact, USA is the robber and rapist and evil murderer

 

[nahtanbob]

Are we sure China views sea power the same way the West does?​

Opinion by Douglas Robb, Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Ward

This is part of a series exploring ways to strengthen the U.S. Navy's fleet. Click here to see the entire series.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy now includes multiple warship classes, fifth-generation fighters and an expanding submarine force. These means - combined with, in the words of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command leader Adm. Samuel Paparo, illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive maritime gray zone activities - seemingly imply that China's strategic ends are self-evident.

However, on closer examination, strategists are right to ask if the U.S. - or more broadly the West - understands the extent to which China values sea power as an enabler for grand strategy. Are we mirroring or projecting our reasonable and rational expectations onto Beijing?
The problem with mirroring is that it catalyzes policies aimed at eliciting certain behaviors on the assumption that two actors think alike. Such mirroring can be the product of institutionalization or a lack of imagination, something that took Western naval analysts decades to discern during the Cold War. Even referring to China as the United States' strategic "pacing challenge" implies an element of mirroring by benchmarking one against the other.
Consequently, policymakers should ask three questions to help frame our understanding of China's view on sea power to formulate sound naval strategy and optimize resources for the future.


First, why isn't China employing its naval force like we do? China is building aircraft carriers, but construction is not the same as operation. Ample evidence suggests China will employ its ships differently than the U.S. or U.K. navies.
For instance, Chinese carriers sail almost exclusively in the so-called near seas, rarely venturing beyond the first island chain, which stretches from Japan's East China Sea islands through the Philippines. This is curious considering these waters are largely enveloped by the weapon zones of China's neighbors.

A Chinese J-15 fighter jet prepares to take off from the Shandong aircraft carrier during a military exercise around Taiwan on April 9, 2023. (An Ni/Xinhua via AP)© Provided by Navy Times
Conversely, Western naval doctrine prioritizes safeguarding high-value assets, employing carriers in the open ocean to exert sea and air control over a wide area.
Moreover, whereas Western navies use carriers for power projection, China appears to use them to protect other naval forces. China has armed the capable Renhai-class cruiser with long-range anti-ship missiles that could make this ship, rather than a carrier, the centerpiece of a task force.

Some assess that China's aircraft carrier program is a "propaganda showpiece." Perhaps China's naval buildup is about number parity or another instance of copycatting. Or maybe China believes carriers are a mark of superpower status.
Irrespective of the rationale, we fall into the trap of mirroring if we assume similar ships flying different ensigns will be employed similarly.

Second, why doesn't China seek maritime partnerships like we do? The U.S. Navy values multilateral maritime partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region and strengthens them through exchanges, exercises, combined operations and industry cooperation. China has not pursued the same capacity-building approach.
Although China carries out periodic exercises in the Indian Ocean with Iranian and Russian warships, the commitment is lukewarm at best; in 2021, the Chinese didn't show up. The interoperability practiced by the U.S. and its allies remains beyond the scope of Chinese naval ambition.

More recently, China has eschewed an opportunity for maritime multilateralism by declining to participate in Operation Prosperity Guardian in the Red Sea. This move underscores Beijing's unilateral and skeptical approach, possibly out of fear of losing face in a congested maritime space or a belief that partnerships are liabilities rather than enablers.
By assuming that partnership-building is a cornerstone of all regional naval strategies, Western navies risk projecting allied diplomatic and military expectations onto China.

Third, why doesn't China use its overseas naval facilities like we do? One of the key features of a global blue-water navy is a network of bases and port-access agreements in friendly countries. Western fleets use foreign ports to extend operational endurance and sustain forward presence.
While much has been written about the maritime elements of China's Belt and Road Initiative - including construction projects in Djibouti and Pakistan - there is a difference between ports and bases; Long Beach is not San Diego.

From left, a satellite image shows a naval base in Djibouti with Chinese military presence, and a near-replica pier in Cambodia's Ream Naval Base that China uses. (Courtesy of BlackSky)© Provided by Defense News
China's military facility in Djibouti is its sole overseas base but is only used regularly by China's modest, three-ship Middle East task force. And while the hydrographics and piers can reportedly accommodate carriers, none have entered the Indian Ocean to date.
China has favored direct commercial investment rather than military facility construction. Consequently, it holds relatively little maritime influence in the Indian Ocean. Though Chinese warships refuel in Sri Lanka; repairs and rearming are conducted back home.

Mirroring happens when we expect China to use its overseas facilities as an extension of its naval might. These assumptions can then form the basis for U.S. policy decisions that allocate time and finite resources.
In fairness, it can be easy to commit the mirroring fallacy. To an untrained eye, China's warships, aircraft, weapons and even uniforms look recognizably similar. And its tit-for-tat scorekeeping and documented belligerency makes it easy to assume the worst.
However, the truth may be that our views on sea power fundamentally differ. Look no further than China's use of a "para-naval" militia to enforce maritime policies, a tactic anathema to Western conceptions of the rule of law at sea.
The scale and impact of China's "opaque second navy" are monumental: Its Coast Guard alone forms the world's largest of its kind, and its fishing fleet is the world's largest.

Analysis must be clear-eyed given the stakes involved with two nuclear powers. Therefore, as the U.S. and its allies position their policies and platforms for the future, we would be wise to recognize if and when we may be mirroring our perceptions onto competitors. Only then can we appreciate that the beauty of sea power may be in the eyes of the beholder.
Cmdr. Douglas Robb commanded the U.S. Navy's guided-missile destroyer Spruance, and is currently a U.S. Navy fellow at the University of Oxford. Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Ward is a warfare officer with the British Royal Navy, and is currently a Royal Navy Hudson fellow at Oxford. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the U.S. Defense Department, the U.K. Defence Ministry, the U.S. Department of the Navy, nor the U.S. and U.K. governments.
This is part of a series exploring ways to strengthen the U.S. Navy's fleet. Click here to see the entire series.

 

[samejjangir]

Nope. Warships are too important and will stay. China too is building lots of massive warships. They are not fools. However, with advancements of technology, its possible that future warships will be largely autonomous and many functions controlled via AI. But presence on seas will always remain important.

If your enemy is 5000 miles away, how you are going to attack it without a navy? Through land based missiles means you need seriously expensive missiles that will be so large containing so much fuel to carry that long distances. However, if you have a navy, then a warship can go to the area and fire lot of cruise missiles. Even to deploy troops to far off distance you need large naval ships to transport the troops and protect them on the way. If you have aircraft carriers, you can bring air-power to that area. Even for drones to fly out, you need a carrier. Turkey is making a drone carrier, Portugal is procuring drone carriers, Even Iran converted a oil tanker and turn it as a drone carrier. So warships are important even if you have to deploy drones to far off distances. If you don't invest in large naval platforms than you cannot fight an enemy that is at a distance. Your whole strategy will become defensive or localized. Just like houthis. They are only localized player, they can only attack at a limited range.

The only way USA maintains big navy is due to allies and many bases. But the same bases are extorting a heavy toll on USA economy which is declining due to untenable military expenditure and not enough funds for civilian economy. If not for China giving loans to USA to cover trade deficits, USA economy would have been in a bad situation. China is being smart and not involving itself in resource draining activities and just developing navy for its regional might where it can reach without having to make unnecessary expensive offshore bases. In the short term, USA may appear stronger but in the long term, USA will end up like USSR. The only reason why USA managed to beat USSR was petrodollar but with Arabs moving away from it, USA's fate will be similar to USSR unless it withdraws and reduces its military spending

 

[LeGenD]

The only way USA maintains big navy is due to allies and many bases. But the same bases are extorting a heavy toll on USA economy which is declining due to untenable military expenditure and not enough funds for civilian economy. If not for China giving loans to USA to cover trade deficits, USA economy would have been in a bad situation. China is being smart and not involving itself in resource draining activities and just developing navy for its regional might where it can reach without having to make unnecessary expensive offshore bases. In the short term, USA may appear stronger but in the long term, USA will end up like USSR. The only reason why USA managed to beat USSR was petrodollar but with Arabs moving away from it, USA's fate will be similar to USSR unless it withdraws and reduces its military spending

American economic model is different from that of Soviet Union, it allows private enterprises to develop and create jobs and wealth (Capitalism). It works irrespective of how it is perceived. American military spending does not strain American economy:

Although the United States spends more on defense than any other country, the Congressional Budget Office projects that defense spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) will decline over the coming years — from 2.9 percent of GDP in 2024 to 2.5 percent in 2034. That is considerably lower than the 50-year average spending on defense of 4.2 percent of GDP.

The United States Spends More on Defense than the Next 9 Countries Combined

Defense spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2023.

www.pgpf.org

Following article provides a good explanation of why China buys American debt (Treasury Bonds):

Why China Buys U.S. Debt With Treasury Bonds

China and many other countries buy U.S. debt through the purchase of Treasury bonds, here are the factors behind those purchases.

www.investopedia.com

Modern-age economic system is debt-driven on many counts. Assets = Liabilities, right? It will be helpful to understand American economic system and how its debt is settled and used worldwide. Speculation about American economic decline is old and continuous but it is just that. USD being a world currency in highest demand has its pros and cons.

The US adopted Bretton Woods system as the basis for international economic cooperation after World War II. This system was discarded in favor of choosing any form of exchange arrangement that might work for a country.

"Since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, IMF members have been free to choose any form of exchange arrangement they wish (except pegging their currency to gold): allowing the currency to float freely, pegging it to another currency or a basket of currencies, adopting the currency of another country, participating in a currency bloc, or forming part of a monetary union."

About the IMF: History: The end of the Bretton Woods System (1972–81)

It makes sense actually.

The US will revisit this system if it becomes necessary at some point in the future. The US has lot of wealth including gold.

 

[UKBengali]

@LeGenD - But that "Low" percentage spend of GDP is now when US is still the sole superpower and US dollar is the reserve currency.

This level of military spending will strain the US economy 10 years from now when China is the 2nd superpower and both the US dollar and Chinese Yuan compete to be top world currency.

 

[LeGenD]

@LeGenD - But that "Low" percentage spend of GDP is now when US is still the sole superpower and US dollar is the reserve currency.

This level of military spending will strain the US economy 10 years from now when China is the 2nd superpower and both the US dollar and Chinese Yuan compete to be top world currency.

That situation will put stress on both countries. China does not want Yuan to substitute USD around the world because a very high value Yuan does not works well for its economic model and needs. American economy is massive and finds a way to work lol.

 

[UKBengali]

That situation will put stress on both countries. China does not want Yuan to substitute USD around the world because a very high value Yuan does not works well for its economic model and needs. American economy is massive and finds a way to work lol.

China is not a resource rich country for its population.

It's economic model will change from one of exports to one of both exports and consumption over the next decade, as it becomes a developed country well able to manufacture every type of technology from semiconductors to jetliners.

China will export hi tech goods and import masses of foodstuffs, energy etc. A relatively high value Yuan will work with this model.

 

[LeGenD]

China is not a resource rich country for its population.

It's economic model will change from one of exports to one of both exports and consumption over the next decade, as it becomes a developed country well able to manufacture every type of technology from semiconductors to jetliners.

China will export hi tech goods and import masses of foodstuffs, energy etc. A relatively high value Yuan will work with this model.

Yes, you are right. But China will continue to control its markets and will not allow Yuan to flow freely and be valued like USD anytime soon. China will open its markets gradually in line with its consumer growth rate but China will want to retain its manufacturing industry to the extent possible.

The US actually wants to devalue USD to make its industry competitive but it is unable to because it has open markets and USD has international demand. The US is still the 2nd largest manufacturer of goods and its services are high quality. USD will remain in high demand in foreseeable future.

The US is using forecasting systems to understand how global economic situation will shift over time. The US is not worried and its defense expenditure is likely to reduce in coming years. It still has such a big military budget that its military will remain competitive.

 

[SaadH]

Yes, you are right. But China will continue to control its markets and will not allow Yuan to flow freely and be valued like the US anytime soon. China will open its markets gradually in line with its consumer growth rate but China will want to retain its manufacturing industry to the extent possible.

The US actually wants to devalue USD to make its industry competitive but it is unable to because it has open markets and USD has international demand. The US is still the 2nd largest manufacturer of goods and its services are high quality. USD will remain in high demand in forseeable future.

The US is using forecasting systems to understand how global economic situation will shift over time. The US is not worried and its defense expenditure is likely to reduce in coming years. It still has such a big military budget that its militay will remain competitive.

US defence budget keeps going up each year. The only economic lesson US has learnt and applied is one of mafia style coercion and elimination of competitors. With dollar hegemony on the wane and industrial efficiencies of east Asia, particularly China on the rise, the heavily indebted US economy will struggle in a world where it will no longer have the luxury to keep its biggest industry of dollar printing going.

 

[Han Patriot]

Stop peddling false information. Maybe 25-30% of US ships are older than 30 years.

The USN has commissioned 116 ships since 2000. There’s a dozen Burke destroyers launched or under construction, another dozen Virginias either launched or under construction. Colombia class SSBN under construction. The CVN-79 Kennedy and LHA-8 Bougainville are both being fitted out. The Constellation class frigate has begun construction.

China could double its 55 fleet and add a dozen 52D destroyers today and the USN would still have almost double the amount of VLS cells than China.

25%? Do you know the productive power of the Chinese shipbuilding industry? US can't even build a modern container ship within budget and time. As for submarines, nobody even knows how many were built.