[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I would put US ASW as quite the formidable hurdle to any non NATO fleet.

The Chinese are a paper dragon militarily just as they have turned out to be economically.

I think US and UK hunter-killer subs (who are now on their Nth generation) would be quite willing to prove the point in a shooting war, and that's discounting what the USN air assets can do, as well as ASW cruisers and destroyers.

The US has been playing this game a long time and when was the last time the USN lost a war?

Oh, I'm not saying the Chinese sub strategy would actually work. Not at all. I'm just saying that their strategy for now seems to be one of area denial since they cannot achieve dominance of their own.

I know you know your stuff on this Bart. Some of these post however, are firmly in 'make-believe' land.

Sometimes the rabid anti-US stance of some Canadians makes them forget that without them, we would have to spend a hell of a lot more on our own defence.

Despite the loud yank-bashers there are a good chunk of us who are aware of who our real friends are.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

China wants to build carriers too, but can't afford them.

China could afford some $8 to $10 trillion of the US debt. I'm sure they could spare a few paltry billion for some carriers - which is something they have been actively pursuing for several years.

The problem they face is that they lack the knowledge of naval architecture required for modern carriers and then they totally lack the body of knowledge needed to successfully run a carrier air group. They are playing catch-up in a very big way with the US Navy and will have a very long way to go before they have any kind of power with carriers. India is way ahead of them on carriers right now.

But where China is going for now is submarines to try to deny the US our carrier advantage. I guess if they can't have carriers then the fall back position is to try to make sure no one else does.

Yes, China has several trillion in US Bonds, but unless they're different from any otehr bonds, you can't just run down to the bank and cash them in any old time you want.

Their lack of technology and know-how are significant hurdles, but ones that could be reached with say $30 or $40 billion. Shipyards, training facilities and all the other accoutrements necessary could be built, if the money was there. Their fleet is just now beginning to develop any sort of blue water capability (depoying to the Indian Oceanto deter piracy), but they are at least a decade from having a legitimate blue water force.

I agree that the Chinese are following the Soviets' Cold War doctrine and building subs, in hopes of denying the sea lanes to US carriers, but NATO navies have been practicing ASW for 50+ years, and unless they build something much better than what they can nowadays, the PLAN submarine force will never be a credible threat to worldwide sealanes. As Eyebrock said, the current gen of nuke subs from the US and UK are lightyears ahead of China, so that's another factor tipping the scales against them.

The other problem is that foreign currency is needed to keep the eoncomy going, not build fancy ships. The Communists are far more worried about the 300+ million poor in China than they are of the USN. If they lose faith with leadership, then they'll be out on the streets. And the Communists can't flee to Taiwan like Chiang Kaishek did...

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

China wants to build carriers too, but can't afford them.

China could afford some $8 to $10 trillion of the US debt. I'm sure they could spare a few paltry billion for some carriers - which is something they have been actively pursuing for several years.

The problem they face is that they lack the knowledge of naval architecture required for modern carriers and then they totally lack the body of knowledge needed to successfully run a carrier air group. They are playing catch-up in a very big way with the US Navy and will have a very long way to go before they have any kind of power with carriers. India is way ahead of them on carriers right now.

But where China is going for now is submarines to try to deny the US our carrier advantage. I guess if they can't have carriers then the fall back position is to try to make sure no one else does.

Yes, China has several trillion in US Bonds, but unless they're different from any otehr bonds, you can't just run down to the bank and cash them in any old time you want.

Their lack of technology and know-how are significant hurdles, but ones that could be reached with say $30 or $40 billion. Shipyards, training facilities and all the other accoutrements necessary could be built, if the money was there. Their fleet is just now beginning to develop any sort of blue water capability (depoying to the Indian Oceanto deter piracy), but they are at least a decade from having a legitimate blue water force.

I agree that the Chinese are following the Soviets' Cold War doctrine and building subs, in hopes of denying the sea lanes to US carriers, but NATO navies have been practicing ASW for 50+ years, and unless they build something much better than what they can nowadays, the PLAN submarine force will never be a credible threat to worldwide sealanes. As Eyebrock said, the current gen of nuke subs from the US and UK are lightyears ahead of China, so that's another factor tipping the scales against them.

The other problem is that foreign currency is needed to keep the eoncomy going, not build fancy ships. The Communists are far more worried about the 300+ million poor in China than they are of the USN. If they lose faith with leadership, then they'll be out on the streets. And the Communists can't flee to Taiwan like Chiang Kaishek did...

Very well put boots. You have it sussed out well and I totally agree.

[llama66]

What about buying the "Invincible" Class from the Brits (once they are done building their new CVN class)?

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

They are playing catch-up in a very big way with the US Navy

I was looking up random facts for a friend of mine, and it said that if the U.S. took all the ships they currently use as memorials and turned them back into warships as a separate navy, it would be the third largest in the world.

[herbie]

$1:

Sometimes the rabid anti-US stance of some Canadians makes them forget that without them, we would have to spend a hell of a lot more on our own defence.

That's what the Yanks keep telling us. And the truth for many neo-cons is what they say over and over and over..... while they STEAL our Arctic. One fucking day later, they announce they're going to 'protect the Arctic' and we're just 'claiming' it's ours.... yeah right.

waahhh we can't even build an Army truck... we have no business building an army truck... they're too fucking hard... waaahh

[RUEZ]

herbie herbie:

$1:

Sometimes the rabid anti-US stance of some Canadians makes them forget that without them, we would have to spend a hell of a lot more on our own defence.

That's what the Yanks keep telling us. And the truth for many neo-cons is what they say over and over and over..... while they STEAL our Arctic. One fucking day later, they announce they're going to 'protect the Arctic' and we're just 'claiming' it's ours.... yeah right.

waahhh we can't even build an Army truck... we have no business building an army truck... they're too fucking hard... waaahh

Are you drunk?

[herbie]

YEah, stereotype me just cuz I'm from the Fort!
No pissed off cuz I used to work for Kenworth. My ex used to work for Freightliner. Have friends in Kelowna at WesternStar and used to have friends at Navistar in Vancouver.
And we're buying 1/4 billion worth of trucks from the US and propping up the Big 3 here with $3-$4 billion.

Add on that I flip on the tube and hear Bush telling everyone it's up to the USA to keep the NWP open!
Doesn't crap like that even bother you?

[herbie]

YEah, stereotype me just cuz I'm from the Fort!
No pissed off cuz I used to work for Kenworth. My ex used to work for Freightliner. Have friends in Kelowna at WesternStar and used to have friends at Navistar in Vancouver.
And we're buying 1/4 billion worth of trucks from the US and propping up the Big 3 here with $3-$4 billion.

Add on that I flip on the tube and hear Bush telling everyone it's up to the USA to keep the NWP open!
Doesn't crap like that even bother you?

[herbie]

YEah, stereotype me just cuz I'm from the Fort!
No pissed off cuz I used to work for Kenworth. My ex used to work for Freightliner. Have friends in Kelowna at WesternStar and used to have friends at Navistar in Vancouver.
And we're buying 1/4 billion worth of trucks from the US and propping up the Big 3 here with $3-$4 billion.

Add on that I flip on the tube and hear Bush telling everyone it's up to the USA to keep the NWP open!
Doesn't crap like that even bother you?

[llama66]

Oooooo....the elusive triple post!

[martin14]

well, Herbie in 'bash the submit key' mode, is basically right.

We have neither real facilities, nor experience to build anything serious anymore.

It would take 5 years just to either reopen Saint John,
or build Esquimalt into a real yard, and then something like a carrier
takes a couple years to build.

Even small boats like frigates would be difficult to do now.

It does tie in to the Artic arguments about passage and sovereignty,
to make it simple, we are currently unable to defend ourselves in the water,
and it will get worse in the future.. not good.

[Scape]

Nope, it isn't. Sounds like a great make work project.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

Nope, it isn't. Sounds like a great make work project.

I've seen the reasons why we can't do it. I know we don't have the capability anymore, but I haven't seen anyone present a reason as to why we shouldn't do this.

Even if we had to buy icebreakers from Russia or something. We need the capability. A carrier or 4 would be nice. Northern airbases would be better.

It might be a good time. The oil patch is slowing down, and there will be a lot of welders and boilermakers looking for something to do.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Scape Scape:

Nope, it isn't. Sounds like a great make work project.

I've seen the reasons why we can't do it. I know we don't have the capability anymore, but I haven't seen anyone present a reason as to why we shouldn't do this.

Even if we had to buy icebreakers from Russia or something. We need the capability. A carrier or 4 would be nice. Northern airbases would be better.

It might be a good time. The oil patch is slowing down, and there will be a lot of welders and boilermakers looking for something to do.

The only reason the nay-sayers will use is simply the money.
We should be doing something, considering we had yards before, it is just a
lack of willpower to do it.

Buying something outside might solve a short term gap, but long term,
there should be a better plan.