I don't think much I read in a Rand report about this will be a huge surprise.
The US mil has become very network centric, with extensive sensor fusion from varied sources, and when able to use the full capability they have developed they are unequaled. But even at the more localized level, each soldier, each airmen, each aircraft or ship, there really is no force, on average, as capable.
Deny / reduce C4ISR and the US military will loose its "hammer swatting a fly" advantage, but it is still capable of defeating the Chinese, it will just take longer and result in higher losses. The Chinese are absolutely trying to change that, their modernization / expansion efforts are enviable, but they are not there yet, nor will they be in the near future.
And yes, the US mil does train / practice in a denied environment. They often don't like to, they prefer to enjoy the advantages of full systems, but testing and training of reduced abilities does take place.
The will be there in another 10 years if not a little later. They are spending money and are willing to make mistakes. They already control the littoral and near littorals along the nine dash line. I believe as soon as they have the amphibious capacity to invade Taiwan and the naval capacity to suppress those defenses you'll see war.
I don' t doubt, in the least, the Chinese have the technical ability to kill CVNs, especially in relatively close proximate to their territorial waters. That was not the point of what I was saying. They have developed techniques and hardware specific to that task. What I doubt is their willingness to do so, and to then suffer the escalation that would almost certainly come in the event of a couple of sunk carriers.
Killing a carrier would be a major escalation, and would probably expand a conflict significantly. Disabling it, without sinking it, would be far preferable.
They are planning on killing the carriers. Their doctrine are geared towards killing the CV and their public policy statements support it. (DF-21?)
You cannot compare the US / China matchup today to the Cold War US / Russia situation. I am NOT saying China is easy or second rate, not in the least, only that it is not very similar to that past situation.
Lets talk about the impact of such a conflict to the Chinese economy. Leaving out direct impacts (see what I did there? ) due to any major conflict, reduced infrastructure, restricted shipping capability, etc, the US is about 18% of China's exports, on the order of 540 billion dollars a year. Are they going to take a chance to disrupt that, and probably a significant portion of the 700 billion a year to Europe also, by sinking a US carrier? The Russians never had that kind of economic tie to the US.
And while trade is important to both sides of the equation, China (more succinctly, the governing body of China, to stay in power) needs the US more than the US needs China. In the event of a major or protracted conflict the US would have major shortages of many items, but relatively few that are critical. The Cosco / WalMart shelves may run bare of weedeaters, plastic toys, and TV sets, but fuel, food, and medical services would continue mostly unharmed for quite a while. Sure, fuel prices would go up (impacting almost all other pricing), people would be unhappy about things like that, but life would go on.
They still have a greater manufacturing base. Skip the consumer market for a second and think about defense electronics and ability to manufacture things like ships and airplanes. The US and Europe can't even repair what we have;
Navy Needs More Dry Docks for Repairs, Says First-Ever Maintenance Report - USNI News
China is far more dependent on foreign oil imports than the US is. And while Russia is the single largest supplier of oil to China, China still gets a lot of oil by sea.
Approximately 2/3rds of their oil comes through the straits of Hormuz and by sea. (Another reason why they have established bases in Pakistan and Djibouti.) The question becomes one of reserves and Russian supplies along with oil reserves within the nine dash line.
In the event of a protracted or expanded US/China conflict I doubt the Chinese Navy could keep sea lanes open. 30+ years ago this would have small impact on the average Chinese citizen...not so today.
One Belt One Road initiative reduces the dependence on SLOC. Did you see the train from China to Europe?
China is overall dependent upon exports for their economy. Rand estimates it's about 40% of their economy versus about 15% of the US economy. The question becomes one of how badly do they want Taiwan.
I mention nukes here just for the sake of showing numbers and ratios, not as suggestion they would be used as the result of some regional conflict, I don't think the Chinese are that driven, and I am reasonably certain no US president wants to be the guy that used nukes, in Asia, for the second time. Russia had rough parity with the US in nuclear capability, China does not. In the late 1980's the Soviets had on the order of 40,000 warheads, and the US had around 23,000. MAD was much more than a concept. Today China has anything from 250 to 600'ish weapons, depending on which source you believe, and the US has roughly 6,200. Both have the ability to greatly impact the other, but the US has the ability (but probably not the will) to erase China.
Agree
Russia had a serious Blue Water Navy and threat to US battlegroups in any theater in the World. I do not claim China is not a threat to a battlegroup near home, however they have very limited ability to project Naval power beyond the immediate region. Russia was a World military player, China is a World power but more of a regional military player with desires to move up to the big leagues.
Much more importantly, for the entirety of the Cold War the Russian military was a dagger pointed at the chest of our friends and allies in Europe. They had a significant conventional military force that could, in a matter of days (because of location and geography) , roll into and over several nations with which the US was strongly allied and had historical ties. China does not have this lever. Who are they going to roll tanks into, Russia? India? They do, of course, threaten allies, Japan, Australia, etc, but they would have to ship forces there before they could occupy those locations. Not the same thing at all.
The Blue Water naval parity between the US and Russia during the Cold War was relatively close, the Chinese Navy has nothing like that. SSBN's, SSN's, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Carriers, they are well behind the US, a fraction of the capability. For littoral combat and waters close to home they are formidable, but after the expansion of the conflict that would almost certainly result from sinking a Carrier, how long would those last?
Two former shipmates toured a Type 052D destroyer four years ago. Both of them were Advanced Damage Control Instructors and INSURV inspectors. The were both impressed with what they saw overall. (The ship was also mid-deployment.) Do not, do not discount the Chinese. Their building program over the last decade has resulted in newer ships of similar capabilities. (I'l also highly suggest you read the report on the Fitzgerald in terms of manning, training and material condition.)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf
I view the Chinese problem as having two "levels". The Spratly's and in, and outside that region. Inside that region they are strong and capable, equal to what US forces could bring to the table in many ways, ahead in some ways, and behind in others. More behind than ahead, but close. In the long term I think the US would prevail (assuming it maintained the resolve), but it would be a protracted effort. Outside of that region there is no real comparison, the US military has the advantage in every way I can think of.
China is building a blue water navy including amphibs. Please take a look at their recent commissioning rates.
Here is their official position and rational:
"China's national interests, its national security is more vulnerable to international and regional turmoil, terrorism, piracy, serious natural disasters and epidemics, and the
security of overseas interests concerning energy and resources, strategic sea lines of communication (SLOCs), as well as institutions, personnel and assets abroad, has become an imminent issue"
China's Military Strategy (full text)
Sure, stealth (the reduction of signature, across many regions) is not the game changer it was 25+ years ago. It is more a fact of military development for everyone than the silver bullet it used to be for the US.
But it still works.
Agree. And even if it can be "negated" until it totally rendered obsolete and of no military value it should be incorporated into new design. I did wish to imply that stealth is dead.
Military's may work on anti-stealth tech (view the expansion of passive radar systems that started this portion of this thread) but the vast majority of weapons systems that operate beyond short ranges are still radar guided. Stealth excels in the RF realm. What SAM is in the field, in numbers, today or in the near future that can intercept an aircraft at greater than 6 km? The VAST majority are radar guided, a minority are IR guided, and a vanishingly small percentage use some other technology.
Stealth is still more survivable than non-stealth. I believe it will, to some extent, be so for quite a long time.
I fully agree.
And I don't. I don't think anyone can fully suppress the EM spectrum in the first place (maybe your idea of the full spectrum is different from mine). They can impact major important parts of it, they can reduce the usability of large chunks of it. But unless by "localized" you mean a bubble a few km across I doubt anyone, in a usable way, can deny it all, and I especially don't think they can do so without major impact to their own capabilities beyond preplanned events.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I suspect they'll overwhelm in a sneak attack (Again published doctrine.) while suppressing any form of response from American allies and I think they'll have a willing partner in Russia,
T!