The Chinese announced the new carrier Fujian. I was surprised to hear that it’s diesel powered. I googled it, and they have some nuclear powered ships and subs in their navy. It just seemed weird that their 3rd carrier still burns diesel. Nuclear power must be hard and expensive.
It kind of gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling that the US Navy is the most powerful in the world. The Big E was commissioned in 1961, nuclear powered.
China’s New Aircraft Carrier Sails Out to Sea for First Tests (msn.com)
Their Type 004 carrier is intended to be nuclear powered. It is both hard and expensive, and carriers are maybe not the best tool for the type of fight PRC is most likely to find themselves in over the near future.
The Chinese announced the new carrier Fujian. I was surprised to hear that it’s diesel powered. I googled it, and they have some nuclear powered ships and subs in their navy. It just seemed weird that their 3rd carrier still burns diesel. Nuclear power must be hard and expensive.
It kind of gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling that the US Navy is the most powerful in the world. The Big E was commissioned in 1961, nuclear powered.
China’s New Aircraft Carrier Sails Out to Sea for First Tests (msn.com)
Warm and fuzzy about power projection (their carrier coming here). But China’s predominant defense strategy seems geared around “Stay the F out of our 1/8th of the globe”. And in that sense, they don’t need to long range.
Also not warm and fuzzy are their “carrier killer” missiles designed to cover the range of that region.
The Chinese announced the new carrier Fujian. I was surprised to hear that it’s diesel powered. I googled it, and they have some nuclear powered ships and subs in their navy. It just seemed weird that their 3rd carrier still burns diesel. Nuclear power must be hard and expensive.
It kind of gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling that the US Navy is the most powerful in the world. The Big E was commissioned in 1961, nuclear powered.
China’s New Aircraft Carrier Sails Out to Sea for First Tests (msn.com)
Warm and fuzzy about power projection (their carrier coming here). But China’s predominant defense strategy seems geared around “Stay the F out of our 1/8th of the globe”. And in that sense, they don’t need to long range.
Also not warm and fuzzy are their “carrier killer” missiles designed to cover the range of that region.
The Navy has thought about that. They have countermeasures.
The Navy has thought about that. They have countermeasures.
Of course they do. It’s their job. But there’s considerable hang-wringing about the effectiveness of those measures/counter-measures. Including some questioning the entire concept of the post-WWII carrier fleet model, evolving to something more distributed, more unmanned, and with fewer “high value targets.” Because one of those counter-measures might be the low-tech solution of parking your carrier and most of the fleet way the hell away from China.
I’ve heard one Army general tell Marines if China invades Taiwan, and we intervene, they should brush up on their bayonet skills. The insinuation being that the EW/ECM by both sides may be so effective that basically only WII-era tech will work. Guns, knives, and old-timey diesel engines. He was using hyberole (I think). But with a serious tone.
The buzzword for Chinese capability is “near-peer.” Russia used to be on that list, but maybe isn’t anymore.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I don’t understand why China would be considered a near peer when the US Navy has 11 carrier strike groups. Their 3rd carrier is still a couple of years out.
Thats interesting. I just read prisoners of geography by Tim Marshall, which it turns out was pretty prescient about Ukraine amongst other things.
One of his points was that China is investing more in a blue water navy to protect its newer interests (through belt and road) much further afield, and that if there were to be a conflict with its neighbours to the south, it may require a bigger navy to support those types of engagements.
what do you think china is most likely to require in the coming years?
I don’t understand why China would be considered a near peer when the US Navy has 11 carrier strike groups. Their 3rd carrier is still a couple of years out.
I think the term is used in the context of my point - that war with China near China’s corner of the globe could be very, very difficult. Which is China’s transparent goal.
Thats interesting. I just read prisoners of geography by Tim Marshall, which it turns out was pretty prescient about Ukraine amongst other things.
One of his points was that China is investing more in a blue water navy to protect its newer interests (through belt and road) much further afield, and that if there were to be a conflict with its neighbours to the south, it may require a bigger navy to support those types of engagements.
what do you think china is most likely to require in the coming years?
I’m sure PRC has aspirations for broader reach, but the main fight they most likely have in front of them is within the South China Sea and their general sphere of influence in SE Asia. They don’t need to spend a lot of money and resources on carriers for that fight, because they have so much ability to project from their own coastline, and potentially from “islands” they’re building up.
PRC already has good capability for the fight I would imagine they’re most likely to see in the near term. If I were them, I’d focus on things that prevent the US and allies from meddling in their local area, rather than on projecting power globally with expensive naval forces.
The Chinese military is much like the Russian military. Leadership is based on loyalty, not competence. You have to keep everything they do and say within that context.
I read a novel last year about a war between China and the US. Long story short … they don’t win; but neither do we. Very sobering read by two thinkers who know geo-politics:
Thats interesting. I just read prisoners of geography by Tim Marshall, which it turns out was pretty prescient about Ukraine amongst other things.
One of his points was that China is investing more in a blue water navy to protect its newer interests (through belt and road) much further afield, and that if there were to be a conflict with its neighbours to the south, it may require a bigger navy to support those types of engagements.
what do you think china is most likely to require in the coming years?
I’m sure PRC has aspirations for broader reach, but the main fight they most likely have in front of them is within the South China Sea and their general sphere of influence in SE Asia. They don’t need to spend a lot of money and resources on carriers for that fight, because they have so much ability to project from their own coastline, and potentially from “islands” they’re building up.
PRC already has good capability for the fight I would imagine they’re most likely to see in the near term. If I were them, I’d focus on things that prevent the US and allies from meddling in their local area, rather than on projecting power globally with expensive naval forces.
And to that end is their ongoing effort to power up those built up once SCS submerged atolls into shoals and then into islands. Seems they are now building nuclear power plants atop floating barges that are towed into position to supply watts for radars, missile launchers, and barracks that sit atop those man made islands.
As for carriers and power projecting, there is something to be said for our sustained capability in this regard. Mobile targets are far more difficult to target than a power barge on a man made island.
Under what circumstances would US go to shooting war with China? How would this effect businesses and US consumers who might be left without Made in China staff?
Under what circumstances would US go to shooting war with China? How would this effect businesses and US consumers who might be left without Made in China staff?
I think the US has at least an implied commitment to help Taiwan if they are attacked by China. If Taiwan were attacked by China it would be a disaster for the entire world I think. Taiwan makes almost all the high level chips for computers and a lot of the regular ones too. 60 percent of all semiconductors and 90 percent of the advanced ones. Even China would have trouble getting enough chips to make stuff likely the entire world would. It would make covid associated supply chain issues seem trivial.
Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta (Facebook) without enough chips. Could cars be made?
We also don’t know how to live without this stuff.
Under what circumstances would US go to shooting war with China? How would this effect businesses and US consumers who might be left without Made in China staff?
Everything in 2034 is an imaginative extrapolation from present-day facts on the ground combined with the authors’ years working at the highest and most classified levels of national security. Sometimes it takes a brilliant work of fiction to illuminate the most dire of warnings: 2034 is all too close at hand, and this cautionary tale presents the reader a dark yet possible future that we must do all we can to avoid.
Book review comments posted to the penguin random house link provided by just Jack above.
Under what circumstances would we go to war with Russia? How close are we now to going to war against Iran?
Response to a direct attack on our force. Maintain open the sea lanes through the South China Sea. These are two that come to the fore. The defense of Taiwan is a bit more convoluted. Telling that the two authors of this imaginative extrapolation work of fiction are alumni from the Navy Marine Corps team and not Army or Air Force.
War between nation states in the 21st century remains an unknown. One thing for certain is that the Great Wars of the 20th century will not serve as models.
I read a novel last year about a war between China and the US. Long story short … they don’t win; but neither do we. Very sobering read by two thinkers who know geo-politics:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/...ral-james-stavridis/
All the managers at work were supposed to read “Kill Chain” by Christian Brose (former staffer for Senate Armed Services Committee). It gets a lot of buzz from senior military leaders. It basically points out how ineffective the US could be in combat with a near peer adversary. Particularly with China in a Taiwan scenario. The criticism is that it paints a picture where everything goes well for China and bad for the US. But still a good sobering look at what needs to get fixed. It would be interesting to see a rewrite based on experiences from Ukraine.
But he does point out in the book that most of the war gaming the US has done for that particular scenario agrees with the conclusions of the book. That is that the US would incur such loss that it would be tough for a US President to make the call to defend Taiwan.
The point Marshall makes in prisoners of geography is Taiwan is 140 miles from china and 6400 from the US and whilst the US has a clear interest in keeping the sea lanes open and being perceived to be close allies or SK, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan, is it really going to go all in given the logistics and issues involved.
China is patient, is demonstrating power in the south china seas and seems willing to wait
I find it difficult to see the US deciding Taiwan is the hill to “die” on if it can maintain its interests in other ways
