What impresses you about Chinese Military?
For me it is Chinese Supply and Logistics, China has mastered railway technology, there's no analogue anywhere else in the world when it comes to train transport.
not helpful when your railways get blown to shit because they're obvious strategic targets and easy to disrupt
real logistical power isn't dependent on such fragile infrastructure and only the US has mastered that after decades of intense conflict in foreign countries
then again all you have to do to stop china is blow up their shitty dam xD
i dont know if americans can really say much about vulnerable targets when we have a few noticible ones as well. power stations arent guarded at all and a catastrophic failure to the power grid would leave a lot of america fucked.
One bomb can kill a lot of people, and once we get air superiority we can drop a lot of bombs. And like this thread is about, it wont matter if they have 100x as many soldiers as we do if they cant make it to the battles.
my bimbers use bouncing bimbs
you're forgetting this isn't the first time the chinese have fought the US. the PLA is highly aware of the air and artillery capabilities of the US.
you should've seen the war games they had 1, 2 years ago, where about half the blue forces were wiped out from the start in a thermo-nuclear attack.
And China does not have anti PGM right? It's one shot one kill right? In reality it won't penetrate enough.
It is immature to think that way. Stealth does not mean invisible like a japanese ninja.
unless they want to put a ground based air defense network over their entire damn railway system it's not exactly easy to stop. as for penetration, the JASSM uses a 1,000lb WDU-42/B warhead, which is specifically designed to penetrate, so it'd do about as well as any bunker busting PGM really
i think i'll ask ho chi minh or mao or the afghani taliban.
you're assuming the PLA will engage the US in conventional warfare, but the roots of the PLA will always be in defensive, unconventional warfare.
>the roots of the PLA will always be in defensive, unconventional warfare.
That was neither the case when China got assblasted by a Vietnam that had been getting fucked up for 30 years in the late 1970's, nor against the Indians nor even in Korea.
For China to protect its current economic interests or even feed its population it REQUIRES sea trade. There's no unconventional warfare strategy that will save their shipping from USN or USAF intercept. And defensive A2AD strategies will never stop NATO/the US from rolling back their air and sea defenses little by little. Given any reasonable amount of time at current force levels the USN and USAF alone would gain access to every strategic target in China in a conventional conflict. Not even the Chinese military disputes this.
Bring RoK, Japan and everyone else to the party and this murder just becomes a rape, too.
what makes you think the chinese expect to keep those assets within 72 hours?
like russia, the key strength of the chinese is the width of their territory and the mass of their manpower.
and against a modern opponent, the Chinese infantry battalions will die to B-1 and B-52 (and every other jet that carries a bomb) strikes or be reduced to guerilla warfare. at that point, why even have a standing army instead of the traditional Swiss model of arming and training the citizenry as a militia?
if China's the socialism with Chinese characteristics paradise the central party makes it out to be, why wouldn't they trust their population with a crate of ammunition and a rifle in the closet like the Swiss do?
>That was neither the case when China got assblasted by a Vietnam that had been getting fucked up for 30 years in the late 1970's, nor against the Indians nor even in Korea.
And that's probably why the PLA was stopped in Vietnam and Korea, because they weren't fighting defensive, unconventional wars.
>For China to protect its current economic interests or even feed its population it REQUIRES sea trade. There's no unconventional warfare strategy that will save their shipping from USN or USAF intercept
Unless the economic integrity of the US and China become bilaterally intertwined.
At this point, the most either nation has to fear from is pirates.
and against a modern opponent, the Chinese infantry battalions will die to B-1 and B-52 (and every other jet that carries a bomb) strikes or be reduced to guerilla warfare. at that point, why even have a standing army instead of the traditional Swiss model of arming and training the citizenry as a militia?
As I've said before, Asians from North Korea to Vietnam have experienced US aerial bombing campaigns, and have learned to dig into the ground and the mountains.
As for the Swiss model, that won't work in a country as big as China with 56 different minorities that would split off given the slightest chance. Beijing needs power projection over their nation. Arguably, the train system is more for domestic use, to decrease deployment of units within the borders, similar to the US highway system.
their cyberwarfare abilities.
>stole Russian, all of NATO, and US weapons tech information.
their drones and ATGMs in Syria and Iraq.
>cheaper then anything else anyone can sell and work just as well.
their overall manufacturing capability.
>not really surprised there.
being able to build islands for military use in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world
>if China's the socialism with Chinese characteristics paradise the central party makes it out to be, why wouldn't they trust their population with a crate of ammunition and a rifle in the closet like the Swiss do?
You're missing the point of the PLA. They're not loyal to the people or to the government at large. They're loyal and only swear oaths to the Chinese Communist Party. Literally.
The biggest reason for existence of the PLA is making sure the CCP stays in power and to protect them from a worst case scenario involving internal unrest. Arming and training the populace serves exactly the opposite end and effectively puts some power in the hands of the very people which terrify Chinese leadership.
>And that's probably why the PLA was stopped in Vietnam and Korea, because they weren't fighting defensive, unconventional wars.
So you're saying that the way China fought the only wars which China in its current form has EVER fought somehow proves that China fights wars a completely different way? That's retarded.
>Unless the economic integrity of the US and China become bilaterally intertwined.
Economy is global, dipshit. Every economy is entwined to various levels. The question or observation you should be more concerned about is at what point US business interests in China and possible damage from extraction of those interests from China is outweighed by the threat China represents in deed and plan. Anyone who claims this cost/benefit line does not exist is retarded.
>As I've said before, Asians from North Korea to Vietnam have experienced US aerial bombing campaigns, and have learned to dig into the ground and the mountains.
They did not rely on high end industrialized characteristics, facilities and trade flowing just to feed their people at ANY reasonable level. China does. That is the main difference you ignore. The US, or anyone else, would only need to choke maritime trade, keep internal logistics nodes off line and then wait for starving Chinese people to overthrow their leadership.
no, you made my point for me but without the sarcasm.
arming the Chinese populace would result in significant change in the central government. if, as the anon said, the PLA is a guerilla army writ large, then the best way of doing that would be to copy the Swiss. but it's not happening. the Chinese PAP is to ensure the government stays in power, and the PLA is a conventional army.
>So you're saying that the way China fought the only wars which China in its current form has EVER fought somehow proves that China fights wars a completely different way?
i don't know where the fuck you got any idea like that, but then i guess your mother thought the same about giving birth to you.
my point, you fine specimen of fetal alcohol syndrome, is that the PLA originated from defensive, unconventional warfare. China is particularly suitable this kind of warfare for the Chinese population, and the PLA is strongest when sticking to this doctrine. Fighting outside it's forte renders the PLA like the proverbial fish out of water, or for an analogy you might understand, the retard kid in normal classes.
I have no clue how you can continue to make these assertions when the PLA has literally NEVER fought a war this way. Ever.
This is either the greatest asspull ever or I missed a major war sometime in the last 65 years.
That's cool and all but all the United Statees would have to do is blow the dams and aqueducts and power plants and let China solve itself. I can't imagine why the Unites States would even have to have a ground presence in China, since there's nothing that really needs to be taken. It doesn't need to invade to force a surrender, and I doubt there are even enough US troops available to effect an occupation while maintaining existing obligations. All one would need to do is create a situation whereby the Chinese can't project power past their own borders, and the war is essentially won. The only places the US might send ground troops are Shanghai, Port Arthur and Canton, and in the latter case, it's only to secure Hong Kong.
>Economy is global, dipshit. Every economy is entwined to various levels.
I know there things may seem like profound revelations to a white trash mongoloid like yourself, but most people know that countries trade with each other.
What makes the US and China so special is that both countries are especially dependent on each other to the point that military options are simply viable. As I recall, China has the Most Favored Nation status and is the number one exporter of goods to the US. Meanwhile, it is currently believed that if China lost the US market, the hit in unemployment would make the Wiemar Republic look like a Golden Age of prosperity.
>The question or observation you should be more concerned about is at what point US business interests in China and possible damage from extraction of those interests from China is outweighed by the threat China represents in deed and plan.
And here is the reality: the Chinese do not pose any physical threat to the US mainland. The Chinese do no possess the logistical capacity to invade and occupy the US. With that military reality squared away, the only thing US businesses have to worry about are the quality fade with the export manufacturing and the occasional saber-rattling that induces xenophobia. The situation between China and the US is not at all similar to European nations before the outbreak of WW1
>As I recall, China has the Most Favored Nation status and is the number one exporter of goods to the US. Meanwhile, it is currently believed that if China lost the US market, the hit in unemployment would make the Wiemar Republic look like a Golden Age of prosperity.
Just for one example, the US and Germany did very large percentages of total trade with each other just before WWII, and the US was even more reliant on that trade then as it was clawing out of a depression.
>And here is the reality: the Chinese do not pose any physical threat to the US mainland.
Because the worldwide business interests of the US and allies are all on the US mainland, amirite?
>The Chinese do no possess the logistical capacity to invade and occupy the US.
Neither did the Japanese in WWII. That certainly didn't stop them picking a fight.
>With that military reality squared away, the only thing US businesses have to worry about are the quality fade with the export manufacturing and the occasional saber-rattling that induces xenophobia.
This isn't even remotely true. Also, for your personal edification, you should be aware that rising labor costs in China are already driving US manufacturing elsewhere at a greater rate every year. There's a reason the CCP is desperately trying to shift the Chinese economic base.
>The situation between China and the US is not at all similar to European nations before the outbreak of WW1
I am not saying large scale conventional conflict is particularly likely, only that China represents the highest risk of conventional conflict as far as regional powers VS the US and allies, and also that China doesn't have much hope at present if such a conflict were initiated.
As for the insults, get an education, or, fuck, just read a book, and better luck next time.
What's this "we" shit, Hop Sing? Borscht is more American than you are.
Also, it would take simultaneous attacks on multiple targets that are thousands of miles apart to successfully crash the US grid. You probably would have known that if you'd ever been here.
Meanwhile, 3 Gorges Dam is just waiting for its opportunity to wipe out 25% of the Chinese population. It wouldn't even require nukes.
>2 VA class boats per year
>just restarted Burke production at 2 per year
>4 LCS per year
>1 San Antonio per year
>2 Zumwalts commissioned for 2016, another for 2018
>1 ESD 2015, one more per year for the next two years
>1-2 JHSV/T-EPFs per year
and last, but definitely not least:
>1 Ford and 1 America class every 5 years
China is barely outpacing the USN in new displacement commissioned per year, but it's arguable whether they're getting the same capability per ton.
For reference, the Chinese commissioned 15 ships in 2015, 9 of which were Frigates (4 at 4ktons) or Corvettes (5 at 1.4ktons), none of which were nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers or LHD/LHAs. Only 3 destroyers, and only 2 of those were the most modern type.
Uh... The USN is currently building 36 ships, including one America, two Fords, seven Burkes, ten LCS, 4 Virginias and 3 Zumwalts.
That ain't exactly nothing. That's more tonnage than the Taiwanese, South Korean, Italian and Indian Navies (No.s 10-7 on the largest navies in the world list) and almost as much as the French and British navies (No.s 6 and 5).
History has nothing to do with the current power of China.
In the Korean War, a whole army of China was not able to break through a single battalion of Philippine soldiers in the Battle of Yuldong. But it will never happen again, now, a single battalion of China will destroy an army of Philippine soldiers.
Even in history, Great Britain made America a country of slaves and prisoners, a country of subhumans.
Not him, but their industry is mostly geared for making gizmos and trinkets for export. An iPad or T-shirt factory cannot be reset to churn out tanks.
And while making islands is an impressive feat, they are not a substitute for fleet carriers. They can't move, their location is well known, and they'd be cratered to shit in the first hours of a conflict.
America did not commision the amount of ships you posted.
Apples and oranges senpai.
Also, if you knew this, China's naval production yards are in a retooling phase. Their mass production 2012-2014 ended and now they are preparing to build the larger DD-50, LHD's, and their aircraft carriers.
So there was a definite lull in commisionings in 2015-2016.
What matters is 1990-2016 commisionings and tonnage.
It takes a lot more than just building a tank factory to produce a tank.
That's where Chinese #1 manufacturing nation status comes into play. All the logistics, technology, human capital, and commodity resources are lined up in China. That's what makes China able to drive up wages while still maintaining manufacturing capability. Economies of scale.
If any nation could mass produce a modern military, it's China.
That's what they are doing.
Islands do something carriers don't. Gain the legal status of sovereignty over the surrounding area.
>But a missile can't sink an island
It can when it has no stable basis and is being artificially maintained against the ocean's will.
>seals have long ago planted remote charges that were covered by further expansion
>war breaks out
>China builds up forces on island preparing for massive attack
>charges all blow
>huge portions of island just collaspe into the water
>run way gets sink holed
>Their mass production 2012-2014 ended
They commissioned only 7 ships in 2012, 13 in 2013 (8 of those the 1,440t Type 056 Corvettes) and 12 in 2014 (again, 10 of those were Corvettes). 2015 was the first year they outcommissioned the USN in tonnage.
So, no. You're talking out of your ass.
The islands are built upon atolls and reefs.
Remember that the other 6 nations vying for control also built artificial islands. This was back in the 70's-80's. They are still around.
Bait status = BTFO
All right here, although I used several other sources. I was unable to find any inaccuracies in this, though.
I did not count any ships in the comparison which the USN would put under the MSC (supply ships) as opposed to a commissioned warship.
China truly knows how to support the vast motherland. From terrorists trying to take away historically Chinese lands around Mount Everest to Philippino beggars trying to take away Chinese fish in the South Chinese Sea, China can support these rightful deeds because of the logistics and training of the Chinese military. Not to mention the Bullying of Japan and the rebellious island of Formosa, only a great First Rate country like China can defend all of its borders from these kind of people.
kek. facts hurt, don't they fiddy?
The USN has 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers, and 62 currently commissioned Burke class destroyers. Total tonnage is approximately 215,600t for the Ticos, 589,000t for the Burkes. That's 804,600 total tons displacement.
The PLAN is currently, not including what in the USN would fall into the MSC, at just over 709,000 tons displacement. 970,000 total with those ships (although if we throw MSC tonnage in with any USN comparison it gets even worse in favor of the USN).
After looking over this report
It looks like 15 major combatants were commisioned (destroyers, Frigates, subs, LHD's) in 2015.
Looks like a few less in the years prior.
So you're about correct, although I think the area China is growing fastest in quantity and quality wise is in the ships not accounted for as major combatants.
I read somewhere that they launched 45 naval ships in 2014. Hard to get an accurate number from America or China desu.
I'm as American as they come Cletus.
I asked for a source on the tonnage numbers. The problem for you is that no one really knows what China's tonnage is.
The reason being that some logistics ships are counted in America that are not in China and/or vice versa. I assume your "fact" is incorrect since China includes almost all their logistics ships in their navy.
>So you're about correct, although I think the area China is growing fastest in quantity and quality wise is in the ships not accounted for as major combatants.
What, like Corvettes? They're in the numbers.
>I read somewhere that they launched 45 naval ships in 2014. Hard to get an accurate number from America or China desu.
Maybe if you counted bare bones PT boats and other patrol craft not suited for anything but police work, but I don't think even then. They certainly weren't cranking out missile patrol boats in anything like those numbers in 2014.
>The reason being that some logistics ships are counted in America that are not in China
It's the other way around. In the USN, logistics ships are not counted as commissioned tonnage but fall under a separate DoD branch called the Military Sealift Command. China counts their logistics ships (which are actually pretty few - the MSC by itself has more tonnage than the entire PLAN).
Some easy sources which may contain very small inaccuracies, but give you a great overall picture:
Most of the inaccuracies are ships that have already been decomissioned in the USN but not yet removed, like the list above having 3 Perrys on it just a couple months ago (updated now).
To go deeper, you're going to start having to googling hull numbers and keeping notes, which I do for shits and giggles every now and then.
Here you go senpai
>The Chinese navy has 77 surface combatants, more than 60 submarines, 55 amphibious ships and about 85 missile-equipped small ships, according to the report first published by the U.S. Naval Institute. The report explains that more than 50 naval ships were "laid down, launched or commissioned" in 2013 and a similar number is planned for 2014.
And before people scream shill or proofs
The US wouldn't blow the dams, aqueducts, or power plants as targeting those things without them having a direct military purpose or being used by the military in their operations is against the laws of war. All we really need to do is destroy a good portion of their navy and shipbuilding capacity to bring their regional ambitions crashing down for at least two decades. Combine that with the inevitable degradation of their air force, necessary destruction of their nuclear capacity, and widespread unrest following the conflict and we'd essentially roll back China to the late 80s without needing to land troops anywhere outside those islands they're building, Taiwan, and maybe Hong Kong if we feel like sticking it to them.
Anon, "laid down, launched or commissioned" covers 3-6 years worth of shipbuilding. The US has 36 ships currently "laid down, launched or commissioning in 2016".
It's nothing close to the same thing as saying they built 50 ships in one year.
There's a caveat there.
We don't "know" legally if China's islands are artificial or not. No one has ruled on it.
Also, there's another caveat that if the structure provides a public good it can legally reside and recieve a 7 mile sovereignty zone.
But who the fuck follows UNCLOS law? America and pretty much everyone outside the EU don't.
t. Law student
Did you purposefully not cite the rest of my sentence?
Cutting off snippets of sentences and not indicating it is plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
The answer to your question lies there btw. I said "and/or vice versa for China"
International Maritime Law extends exactly as far as the regional powers say it does (and they're willing/care to enforce it). Disputes between regional players which don't get resolved with a show of power/force is a legal clusterfuck that almost never results in damages awarded being abided by.
>Just for one example, the US and Germany did very large percentages of total trade with each other just before WWII, and the US was even more reliant on that trade then as it was clawing out of a depression.
>what is war profiteering
and how could the US be reliant on such trade when it was Germany on the warpath? No, they needed US steel and grain, and the US businesses were quite happy to make them pay a pretty penny for it.
>Because the worldwide business interests of the US and allies are all on the US mainland, amirite?
Ah, NOW we're talking about worldwide interests of the US and co?
Can you decide once and for all exactly what you want to discuss or are you going to jump from topic to topic like an autistic child on a sugar rush jumps from wall wall?
>Neither did the Japanese in WWII. That certainly didn't stop them picking a fight.
The situation between the Japanese and the US is nowhere near similar to the present situation between China and the US.
>There's a reason the CCP is desperately trying to shift the Chinese economic base.
This sounds like a Chinese problem that Chinese businesses should worry about, not US businesses.
>only that China represents the highest risk of conventional conflict as far as regional powers VS the US and allies
Meanwhile, Russia has only recently decided to officially reveal Russian soldiers have been in the Ukraine all along, Turkey has blown shot down some Russian jets, and the Middle East has become the Balkan powder keg.
But sure, let's focus on China because they're taking your jobs.
>As for the insults, get an education, or, fuck, just read a book, and better luck next time.
Nigger I wasn't the first one to throw out insults, but if you're the one that suddenly wants to act civilized, I will civilize your mouth with my cock and plant my flag on a dildo and stick it on your ass.
The rest of your sentence >>28916431 being "and/or vice versa."? See, here's the thing fuckwad. You then followed that bit of COVER YOUR ASS with: "I assume your "fact" is incorrect since China includes almost all their logistics ships in their navy."
I feel more than justified in not only setting you straight with actual facts but also noting you were completely wrong.
Have a nice day, and don't forget to go fuck yourself.
>Can you decide once and for all exactly what you want to discuss or are you going to jump from topic to topic like an autistic child on a sugar rush jumps from wall wall?
Not even that anon, but he gave concrete historical and current geopolitical facts and examples. You're the one with your goalposts on wheels, cherrypicking historical "fact" willy nilly.
>The situation between the Japanese and the US is nowhere near similar to the present situation between China and the US.
Situation as of mid-1941? Nope. Situation as of 1935? There are a whole lot of similarities. Maybe you should have specified any kind of actual time.
>Meanwhile, Russia has only recently decided to officially reveal Russian soldiers have been in the Ukraine all along, Turkey has blown shot down some Russian jets, and the Middle East has become the Balkan powder keg.
Say what you will about Putin, but he was never dumb enough to drink his own Koolaide. He knows where the lines are, and he's not crossing any of the real ones any time soon. The CCP? Who the fuck knows what they're going to do as internal pressures mount.
There isn't a country on earth that the U.S. couldn't bomb at will.
There are only countries which have the capability to make the U.S. pay dearly if they try, (France, Russia, Britian and a few others,) and countries that couldn't even down 5% of incoming bogeys, (almost everyone else.)
Built is arguably all of those things.
Built is a continuing action despite it's past tense conjugation.
The whole argument is semantics to be honest. I'm simply arguing that counting all Chinese naval ships being built they are producing more than us for the last 4 years.
As for our naval logistics reserve, China has a giant state owned fleet of transport ships that usually work privately but can serve the exact same purpose.
It's a wash between America's logistic ships and China's. Both include some in their active Navy numbers.
comparing pre-WW2 trade between Germany and the US with the present trade between China and the US may be concrete, but not particularly relevant.
Drawing similarities between pre-WW2 Japan with present China?
I think I'll go over to /his/ and maybe find someone not as stupid to talk with.
>Situation as of 1935? There are a whole lot of similarities.
please, do clarify
>Nigger I wasn't the first one to throw out insults, but if you're the one that suddenly wants to act civilized
Feel free to quote which of the following contained an insult directed at you:
Those are my only posts in this thread.
As for the rest of your bullshit, I think >>28916553
is doing just fine.
I don't see where I've gone wrong.
The faggot said the Ticos and Burkes out-tonnage the Chinese navy and I said they don't and I explained why.
Go fucking kill yourself. But thanks for the good argument and sources.
Missile doesn't need to sink the island. It just needs to sprinkle submunitions all over the runway.
The difference between hitting an island and a carrier is, islands don't move on random vectors at random speeds.
>Feel free to quote which of the following contained an insult directed at you:
>Economy is global, dipshit.
Of course, insults are simply par for the course. I'm just responding in kind. I hope to have nice chats, but I know exactly where I am, and I have no problem talking down to man-children who whimper about the slightest insults when they get an anxiety attack because someone on the internet said not very nice things.
Anon. Stop being a dipshit. If you count them that way, you end up counting the same fucking ships 3-5 times, once each time you lay the keel, launch and then commission it. Those are three separate events that have to happen to each ship.
I mean, if you want to play it that way, the USN STILL has more tonnage being produced in those 36 ships than the Chinese do in those 50. By a factor of over 1.5.
>The whole argument is semantics to be honest.
No, it's retarded. You want to misrepresent a quote to count Chinese ships three times each. That's just dumb.
>I'm simply arguing that counting all Chinese naval ships being built they are producing more than us for the last 4 years.
Not in 2011 or 2012 in numbers and not until 2015 in tonnage.
>As for our naval logistics reserve, China has a giant state owned fleet of transport ships that usually work privately but can serve the exact same purpose.
Not UNREP, not amphibious supply, not any one of dozens of other missions MSC ships fulfill.
>It's a wash between America's logistic ships and China's
It's not even fucking close.
94 total MSC ships, and by tonnage if we count it as a Navy it would be the second largest in the world.
18 fleet replenishment
here are the auxiliaries, which are do not include the sort of worldwide fleet replenishment capability and fast speed found in the MSC. You will note that most of them are coastal and very small.
First of all, you claimed you were misrepresented and then bitched about academic integrity. On fucking 4Chan. Like an asshurt little girl.
Secondly, you were and are still wrong unless we're counting fucking fleet replenishment ships, which no western navy in the world counts as a commissioned warship.
Oh, and thirdly you should still be ASHAMED to even want to try and claim victory on a technicality in the question of whether the USN has more tonnage commissioned in Destroyers and Cruisers ALONE than the entire PLAN.
The Chinese government owns a whole lot of those giant container ships you see sailing into LA. Those can be used to transport goods from port to port.
I am not misinterpreting it. The ships are not counted three times. They are simply all counted while they are in the process of being launched.
4 years ago = 2012. I may be off by a year. No one knows for sure.
I never mentioned tonnage when it comes to the number produced. I only brought up tonnage when some faggot claimed Ticos+Burkes have more tonnage than the Chinese navy.
It is a wash. China's government owns 300+ cargo ships. Some of these ships are over 80k tons.
China's NAVY. The PLAN. Has more tonnage than the US's Ticos and Burkes combined. The fucker was wrong.
If you include the Chinese government's cargo ships the tonnage gap becomes even greater.
I was obviously exaggerating for effect to make you fucking not misquote me to support your argument. You can't cut a sentence in half and claim I'm an idiot because I said those words.
>I am not misinterpreting it. The ships are not counted three times. They are simply all counted while they are in the process of being launched.
The quote is clear as day:
>The report explains that more than 50 naval ships were "laid down, launched or commissioned" in 2013 and a similar number is planned for 2014.
If every ship produced has to be first laid down, then launched and then commissioned, which they do, that means if you count that number as "total ships produced" every year, guess what? You just counted every single ship three times.
Again, by that metric the USN "built" 36 ships in 2015.
A ship is finished when it is commissioned, which means delivered to the customer navy, accepted for service and becomes a serving platform in that navy. You can count laid down or launched ships if you like, that will almost be as accurate (though ships can and often are cancelled after being begun and laid down or launched).
>If you include the Chinese government's cargo ships the tonnage gap becomes even greater.
If you include the MSC, the USN is over 6 times the size of the PLAN, but NO ONE FUCKING DOES THAT.
Jesus, how ignorant are you? Are you the same dipshit as >>28916715 who needs the basic facts of shipbuilding explained to him?
Except you can move a carrier. You can even send a carrier back to port to replenish it. No matter how many times you divert it, a ship replenishing an island is going to be headed to the same spot. Basically the islands get to start with more, but can't replace it as easily.
>You can't cut a sentence in half and claim I'm an idiot because I said those words.
He can if it was exactly what you meant.
And by your second sentence in that paragraph it clearly was.
What are you even arguing? Are you so mad because you were wrong on the internet?
I never said produced. I used the word built which in modern english can mean a continuing act of creation.
They aren't counted three times. They are counted once. It's simply the definition of what can be counted that has increased.
I understand that would drive America's numbers higher.
I'm gonna go to sleep. Thanks for a decent discussion.
>It is a wash. China's government owns 300+ cargo ships. Some of these ships are over 80k tons.
How exactly do these help with UNREP? I mean, seriously. They have none of the transfer facilities or helicopter pads or specialized transport bays of the MSC ships. How are you counting 300 civilian cargo ships marginally owned by the CCP as part of the Chinese Navy? That's just stupid.
They're worthless in combat, cannot perform UNREP and can't do anything that US flagged cargo vessels cannot do just the same in a wartime situation. Did you think the MSC was just a bunch of regular container ships?
since we are on the subject of China...
I'm trying to do research on chinese MBT development in particular phase 2&3.
I don't know chinese but are there any good sources from first hand accounts from chinese tank crews? Any good video sources of trials and testing that aren't 30 second clips on youtube?
>They aren't counted three times.
They literally are. The quote even says >>28916470
>and a similar number is planned for 2014.
which means many of those ships laid down would be recounted as launched, and many launched would then get recounted as commissioned, some even twice in the same year.
It is literally clear as day.
>I used the word built which in modern english can mean a continuing act of creation.
When you're counting literally every unit three different times, it's pretty moot and void of any semantic value as a concept.
I am from the America of course. I do not understand the question, only a small percent of America is very literate most are only literate to the point of average everyday literate. The semantics of old America is dying, you can only deal with it. Webster dictionary is changing everyday.
The next sentence was>>28916431
>I assume your "fact" is incorrect since China includes almost all their logistics ships in their navy.
Which means you are explicitly suggesting
>The reason being that some logistics ships are counted in America that are not in China
no visa versa about it.
did you forget that the shit you wrote stays there until the thread dies?
Can or rather 'Will' the private Chinese enterprise help in a Chinese war? Let's say US wants China to demolish the Spratly islands but since the Chinese businessman doesn't need the islands, can they opt out of helping the Chinese government from defending those islands? I know US can, like in the Korean and Vietnam war where US lost because of Corporate Support back home.
Did you really think this statement sounded anything like how Americans actually talk or type?
Holy shit, Cap'n Slanty.
By the way, fix your translation software. You didn't use the word "semantics" properly. The word you were looking for is "culture" or possibly "perspective" or "zeitgeist".
Ship A1 is being built
Ship A1 is launched
Ship A1 is commisioned
These are three separate events. Ship A1 is counted once per year depending on its stage of production.
The total amount produced is not the same as the number counted, but the ships counted are all individual ships that will be produced.
No where are the ships counted three times. They simply have a wider definition as to if they can be counted.
Fuck why am I responding?
Some ships are launched and laid down in the same year (like the USS Zephyr or USS Squall), some are launched and commissioned in the same year (USS Thunderbolt), some even get through all three stages in the same year, as is the case with the USS Tabberer and many others.
Just admit you have no clue what you're talking about, especially in the same sentence when the quote says "a similar number" for the next fucking year. Over half that number would be counted twice, if not most of it.
>This is literally an autistic argument over grammar.
You're the retard that started it here >>28916516 and were wrong. You literally started an argument on fucking 4Chan over
>plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Just how retarded are you?
>One sentence does not have to predicate the other.
Uh, they're two sentences back to back in the same paragraph communicating one overall concept.
You're an idiot, anon. And it's even funnier because you're too busy calling other anons in this thread uneducated to see how stupid you are.
I think China impresses me with their ability and will to transform.
They do all they can to modernize (and fail often) but they never give up. They are not afraid to make changes often, even if it takes a decade or two.
Finally they come up with some "good enough" level solution that they apply to the whole military. Something that is not even near high-tech military equipment of other countries technology wise, but which gives them advantage when used with a large military.
Can't help it if dickwaving becomes absolutely hilarious when your dick is that small, Chinaman. Grow a bigger dick if you don't want people laughing behind their hands every time you mouth off.
Another thing that is impressive is the Chinese officer's competence and honor. For their country they will bleed blood sweat and tears unlike other nations that are only there for the pay.
They are willing to bayonet charge a nuclear mushroom cloud, I guess that's kinda neat.
Doesnt matter India will be a superpower by 2020 and rekt murka
burgers confirmed for butthurt
Rail networks are extremely vulnerable to current technologies. Rail networks are defensive in nature. Rail network being stationary are easy to mission kill/disrupt.
BGM-109D Tomahawks (or equivalents) are murder on transportation infrastructure.
Good road networks are important in modern war and China does not have a extensive one. One reason suggested is top down desire for control of population mobility and the immediate jump to mass transit because the population only just recently (historically) got into personal vehicles on a wide spread basis.
As a aside in a real shooting war China has a amazing number of dams, damn busting cruise missiles would be a real threat to them early on. Most of their enemies would probably try to kill power generation facilities only, but in a general lets attack population centers type of war they would really suffer.
The only things that impress me about the Chinese is their ability to perform naval mining operations (they have 40% of the naval mines in the world) and their ballistic missiles dedicated to anti carrier task forces. Along with their artificial island building it reflects a focus on sea control.
>China has mastered railway technology
Put people and cargo on train